Section 38

This provision continues the rule from Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Judgments, orders, and decrees are normally treated as strong or even conclusive proof of certain facts under sections dealing with their relevance. But a judgment obtained by tricking the court, or by parties secretly conspiring to get a particular result, or delivered by a court that never had jurisdiction, should not be allowed to bind or mislead someone in a later case. The law therefore lets an affected party reopen the question of the judgment's validity in the later proceeding itself, rather than forcing a separate lawsuit.

Courts under the old Section 44 held that this provision allows a collateral attack on a judgment only on three narrow grounds: lack of jurisdiction of the court, fraud, or collusion — it is not a general invitation to reargue the merits of the earlier decision. Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved, not merely alleged; mere errors of law or fact in the earlier judgment are not enough. Courts have also clarified that 'collusion' refers to a dishonest arrangement between parties to obtain a particular result to the detriment of a third party, and that competence of the court refers strictly to jurisdiction, not to correctness of the decision.

• Myth: Once a judgment is proved in court, it can never be questioned again.
  Fact: This section specifically allows a party to challenge a proved judgment by showing it was delivered without jurisdiction or obtained by fraud or collusion.
• Myth: You can reopen any old judgment just because you think it was wrongly decided.
  Fact: Courts have read this provision narrowly — only lack of jurisdiction, fraud, or collusion can be used to challenge the judgment, not ordinary errors of fact or law.