1. The revision petition before us stately asks this Court to interfere only with the lower, Court's order, dated 27th February 1912. It however also contains a prayer for the setting aside of an order directing the petitioner's prosecution, which was, it appears, actually passed on 29th February 1912. We cannot deal with the order of 22th February 1912 on this petition.
2. The order of 27th February 1912 was one by the District Munsif of Chowghat vacating his previous order recording satisfaction of a decree, on the ground that the latter was obtained by the petitioner's gross fraud on his Court.
3. This petition is argued on the ground that the District Munsif had no power to pass such an order.
4. We should be prepared to sustain the order as passed under either Section 47, or O. 47 of the CPC. But it is sufficient that it was passed in the exercise of the Court's inherent power under Section 151 of the (CPC, to vacate an order obtained by manifest fraud on it. The propriety of such exercise was recognized in Paranjpe v. Kanade(1) and Subbaji Rau v. Srinivasa Rau(2) and this is sufficient ground for our refusal to interfere.
5. The petition is dismissed with costs.
S.N/R.K
6. Petition dismissed.