In appropriate cases, it is open to the Court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and set aside the compromise or ex parte decree even at the instance of a stranger, who is affected by such decree, if the Court is satisfied that some fraud has been played on the Court itself.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Mirzapur, dated 1/09/1989, rejecting the petitioners application under O. 9. R. 13 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte decree passed in Original. Suit No. 3 of 1985 and also the order of the District Judge, Mirzapur, dismissing the petitioners Appeal No. 104 of 1989, Smt. Suraj Kumari v. Para Devi, vide its order dated 28/11/1989. The said appeal was directed against the order of Munsif Magistrate, Mirzapur, dated 1/09/1989, referred to above. The main contention of the petitioners counsel, in the present petition is that both the Courts below have committed manifest error of law in taking a view that the application for setting aside the compromise decree dated 22/05/1985 at the instance of the petitioner who was not a party in Original suit No. 3 of 1985, was not maintainable under O. 9 R. 11 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) ). At the very out set it may be stated that the Courts below have field that in the circumstances of the case the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is by way of filing a regular suit in Civil Court, which the petitioner has already filed and is pending in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Mirzapur.

( 3 ) ). The controversy in the writ petition is very short as to whether in the circumstances of the present case the petitioner could have sought relief, for setting aside the compromise decree entered into between Nagarmal (petitioners husband) and Smt. Para Devi, in respect of the shop in dispute, of which the petitioner claimed the ownership on the ground that the compromise decree has been obtained by practising fraud on the court, in an application under O. 9, R. 13 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Courts below committed no error in holding that on the facts of the present case the proper remedy for the petitioner is by way of filing a regular suit and which remedy the petitioner has already availed.

( 4 ) ). It is necessary to state some facts for appreciating the controversy raised by the petitioner in the present matter.

( 5 ) ). The relevant pedigree is given below :ram Govind Ram (died in1953) smt. Muneshwara smt. Parvati Devi banshidhar (Died in 1977)smt. Saraswati Devi - Smt. Para Devi shyam Sunder (respondent No. 3)smt. Phool Kumari smt. Suraj Kumari (Petitioner)gopal Dass smt. Devi Kunwar kailash Nath daya Ram nagarmal (Husband)

( 6 ) ). Petitioners case as stated in the writ petition is that one Ram Govind Ram was the owner of the house and the shop situate in Mohalla Dhundi Katra, in the town of Mirzapur. The aforesaid Ram Govind Ram died in the year 1953. Wherein shop in dispute devolved to his wife Smt. Muneshwara and son Banshidhar. Smt. Muneshwara, wife of Ram Govind Ram, who had earlier inherited half share in the property in dispute, became absolute owner of it, on promulgation of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A family settlement between Smt. Muneshwara and her son Sri Banshidhar was arrived at and in accordance with which, the western half portion of the house in dispute including the shop situate at the southern end of it had fallen to the share of Smt. Muneshwara, who by a Will dated 17/10/1971 bequeathed her half share to the petitioner in the house together with the shop, which on partition with Banashidhar had taken to her share. The said Will was attested by Banshidhar, son of Smt. Muneshwara, Smt. Muneshwara, died in the year 1973, wherepon the petitioner became the owner of the aforesaid half portion of the house including the shop in dispute. Banshidhar died in the year 1977 and on his death it is alleged that his half portion devolved on his widow Smt. Paradevi, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 3. The petitioner has further stated that in the year 1985 Smt. Para Devi wife of Banshidhar along with Rajendra Prasa