What is Section 38 BSA?

Section 38 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 allows any party in a suit or proceeding to challenge a judgment, order or decree proved by the adverse party under Section 34, 35 or 36 BSA. The party may show that the decision was passed by an incompetent court or procured through fraud or collusion.

Which judgments, orders or decrees can be challenged under Section 38 BSA?

Judgments, orders or decrees that are relevant under Section 34, 35 or 36 BSA and proved by the adverse party can be challenged. These cover decisions barring a repeat suit or trial, specified probate and similar judgments, and decisions on public matters.

Can a party challenge an earlier decree under Section 38 BSA on the ground of fraud or incompetency of the court?

Yes. Once the adverse party proves a relevant decision under Section 34, 35 or 36 BSA, any party to the proceeding may show that it was procured through fraud or collusion. That party may also show that the court which delivered the decision lacked competence to do so.

What is Section 38 BSA in IEA?

Section 44 IEA. Section 44 IEA became Section 38 BSA on 1 July 2024 with no substantive change to the rule. Only the cited section numbers were updated from Sections 40, 41 and 42 IEA to Sections 34, 35 and 36 BSA.

IEA 44 Is Now BSA 38: What Changed

Aspect	IEA 1872 (repealed)	BSA 2023 (in force)
Section	44	38
Heading	Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved	Same
Cross-references	s.40, s.41, s.42	s.34, s.35, s.36

Aspect

IEA 1872 (repealed)

BSA 2023 (in force)

Section

Heading

Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved

Same

Cross-references

s.40, s.41, s.42

s.34, s.35, s.36

IEA 44 and BSA 38: Bare Act Text Side by Side

IEA 1872 (repealed)

Section 44, IEA 1872

44. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved.—Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under section 40, 41 or 42, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion.

BSA 2023 (in force)

Section 38, BSA 2023

38. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved.—Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under section 34, 35 or 36, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion.

When It Applies: IEA 44 vs BSA 38

Under IEA 44

Applies to any party in a suit or other legal proceeding.
Applies when a judgment, order or decree is relevant under Section 40, 41 or 42 IEA.
Applies after the opposing side has proved that judgment, order or decree.
Lets the party show that the court lacked competence to deliver the decision or that the decision resulted from fraud or collusion.

Under BSA 38

Applies to any party in a suit or other legal proceeding.
Applies when a judgment, order or decree is relevant under Section 34, 35 or 36 BSA.
Applies after the opposing side has proved that judgment, order or decree.
Lets the party show that the court lacked competence to deliver the decision or that the decision resulted from fraud or collusion.

What IEA 44 to BSA 38 Means in Practice

Section 44 IEA became Section 38 BSA on 1 July 2024, and the same rule applies without any substantive change. For matters governed by the BSA, a party should cite Section 38 BSA along with the updated references to Sections 34, 35 and 36 BSA.

IEA 44 to BSA 38: Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved

IEA 44 to BSA 38 at a Glance

What Changed From IEA 44 to BSA 38?

IEA 44 vs BSA 38: Comparison Table

IEA 44 and BSA 38: Bare Act Text Side by Side

When It Applies: IEA 44 vs BSA 38

What IEA 44 to BSA 38 Means in Practice