Direction given for reopening the case of insurance company only.

SUBRAMANI, J.

( 1 ) THE opposite party No. 2 in Workmens Compensation Case No. 227 of 1997 on the file of Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Coimbatore is the revision petitioner. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 in this revision filed the claim petition making the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner liable for getting compensation. Respondent No. 1 herein is the driver of a vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 2 and he met with an accident. Making petitioner also liable, he produced an insurance policy. Steps have been taken by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. Relying on the insurance policy, award was passed making the petitioner also liable and directed it to pay a sum of Rs. 1,21,099. The insurance policy was marked in the case as Exh. A-5.

( 3 ) AFTER the award was passed it was found that the policy produced before the court was fabricated and, therefore, the petitioner filed an un-numbered interlocutory application to reopen the award giving various reasons why the award shall not stand as against the petitioner. Authority simply returned the same on the ground that the said application is not maintainable and it is only to protract the recovery proceedings. The same is challenged in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) THE finding that the petitioner wants to delay the proceedings cannot stand since it has already deposited entire award amount before the authority and only thereafter filed the application to reopen the case.

( 5 ) THE second contention that there is no jurisdiction to reopen the case also cannot stand in view of the decision reported in Indian Bank v, Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1996 CCJ 1272 (SC ). In that case, their Lordships held that fraud invalidates every act of the court and if any order is obtained on the basis of fraud, it is the duty on the part of the Tribunal to have the same set aside. Their Lordships also said that every court/tribunal has got inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders obtained on fraud. On pages 1282-1283 in paras 20 to 23, their Lordships held thus:" (20 ). . . This plea could not have been legally ignored by the Commission which needs to be reminded that the authorities, be they constitutional, statutory or administrative, (and particularly those who have to decide a lis) possess the power to recall their judgments or orders if they are obtained by fraud as fraud and justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant ). It has been repeatedly said that fraud and deceit defend or excuse no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent ). (21) In Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council, 1956 AC 736, the House of Lords held that the effect of fraud would normally be to vitiate any act or order. In another case Lazarus Estate ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 QB 702 at 712, denning, L. J. , said: no judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. (22) The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under section 151, Civil Procedure Code to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud. Inherent power are powers which are resident in all the courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and construction of the Tribunals or courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the courts business. (23) Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the court a