THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1810 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) is directed against the order, dated 19.03.2010, in I.A.No.138 of 2009 in O.P.No.477 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C., to reject the main petition, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Respondent No.1 herein is the divorced wife of the petitioner herein. F.C.O.P.No.662 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad, was filed by the petitioner herein seeking custody of minor female child Aisha Erum, who is under the custody of respondent No.1 herein. On 13.03.2007, that petition was dismissed holding that the petitioner was not entitled for the custody of the minor female child and respondent No.1 herein was entitled for the care and custody of her minor daughter. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein preferred F.C.A.No.37 of 2008 before this Court and as the counsel for the petitioner herein sought permission to withdraw the same, by order, dated 23.03.2009, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the order, dated 13.03.2007, in F.C.O.P.No.662 of 2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, has attained finality. Thereafter, the present O.P. is filed by the petitioner herein to set aside the decree, dated 13.03.2007, in F.C.O.P.No.662 of 2005, on the ground that respondent No.1 herein married another person and played fraud on the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.[1], wherein it is held thus: “The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 CPC 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 Courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the 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 Court’s business.” 5. There is no doubt that fraud vitiates even the solemn judicial proceedings. But, mere saying that there is a fraud is not enough. There must be a plea and there must be evidence to show that respondent No.1 herein by playing fraud on the Court obtained the decree in F.C.O.P.No.662 of 2005. 6. The petitioner herein is a party to the said F.C.O.P. and if really fraud had been played by respondent No.1 herein, there should be an allegation in what manner the fraud had been committed by respondent No.1 herein. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was an undertaking given by respondent No.1 herein that she would not marry again to safeguard the welfare and maintenance of the minor female child. But, there was no such finding given by the trial Court in the said F.C.O.P that respondent No.1 had given such an undertaking. On the other hand, the trial Court has categorically given a finding that the petitioner herein failed to adduce any evidence to show that respondent No.1 herein is contemplating to marry some other person. Simply taking a plea that respondent No.1 herein married another person subsequent to the passing of the decree in the said F.C.O.P., does not mean that fraud has been played by her. It is contended that respondent No.1 herein might not have any intention to marry any person during the pendency of the F.C.O.P., but, she might have developed the intention to marry again after the decree is passed in the F.C.O.P. That aspect of the case cannot be said to be a fraud played on the Court. Therefore, the trial Court rightly allowed the present application. Because a finding of fact has been recorded by the competent Court, the said finding cannot be set aside in subsequent proceedings in between the same parties. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein contended that the petitioner may be permitted to file an Interlocutory Application in the same proceedings, if the law permits to do so. It is made clear that all the remedies available to the petitioner under law are left open. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 06, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1810 OF 2010 Between: Mohd. Abdul Faheem .....PETITIONER AND Syeda Dina Muneer and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1810 OF 2010 October 06, 2010 [1] AIR 1996 SC 2592