IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11810 of 2009 MD.ISLAM KHAN @ MD.ISLAM & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 13.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners have prayed for modification of order dated 27.1.1997 passed by this court in C.W.J.C.No.8327 of 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Kedar Hajam, the petitioner of the aforesaid case, by practicing fraud upon the court has obtained the order dated 27.1.1997. In that case Kedar Hajam prayed for quashing the order dated 13.6.1994 passed by the revisional authority by which wrong Khesra has been allotted in favour of the petitioner. It was submitted that Khesra No.281-282 were allotted to the petitioner by the respondent Anchal Adhikari but the revisional authority by mistake has allotted Khesra Nos.280 and 282. This court in the concluding portion of that order observed as follows: “In that view of the matter, the order, dated 13.6.94 passed by the revisional authority is modified to the extent that in place of Khesra Nos.280-282 mentioned therein, the Khesra Nos.281-282 shall be read, as have been mentioned in the order o the respondent Anchal Adhikari, and the same shall stand allotted to 2 the petitioner and accordingly, the purcha shall be deemed to have been issued to the petitioner. With the aforesaid modification in the order of the revisional authority, this writ application is, thus, disposed of”. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Collector had directed to give possession accordingly. Thereafter petitioners moved this court in writ jurisdiction bearing C.W.J.C. No. 9990 of 2001 which was dismissed by order dated 23.8.2001. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners have preferred an appeal bearing L.P.A.No.1174 of 2001 which is pending before this court. Learned counsel submits that this court has inherent power to review its order if the same has been obtained by fraud. In support of his contention, he relied upon decisions in the case of Chutur Prasad Sah Vs Mt.Bishuri Kuer & another, reported in 1943 Patna 13; P.Padmanabham and others Vs State of A.P. and ors, reported in A.I.R. 2003 AP 444(DB); Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs State of Bihar, reported in 2001(3) PLJR 35 and Mahesh Yadav and another Vs Rajeshwar Singh and ors, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 205. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that this court has inherent power to review its own order if the same has been obtained on the basis of fraud but the party alleging fraud must establish the same beyond all suspicion. The relief 3 KHAN prayed for by the petitioners can not be granted as the petitioners have sought their prayer almost after 12 years of the passing of the impugned order. Further more a writ arising out of the same matter being C.W.J.C.No.9990 of 2001 was filed which too was dismissed and an appeal being L.P.A.No. 1174 of 2001 has been preferred by the petitioners which is pending for adjudication. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the earlier order dated 27.1.1997, passed by this court in C.W.J.C.No.8327 of 1994, as the same suffers from delay and laches on the part of the petitioners. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J)