JUDGMENT 1. We think that this rule must be made absolute. The Subordinate Judge seems to have been of opinion that the grounds alleged in the petition for review presented to him under sec. 623, C. C. P., were not grounds which could be taken cognizance of under that section. One of the grounds alleged was that fraud had been practised upon the Petitioner in connection with the petition of compromise that was put in, and upon which a decree was obtained. That would be a good ground for review of judgment, if such ground is made out. The words of sec. 623 are, amongst others, "or for any other sufficient reason;" and we are of opinion that the ground alleged is a sufficient reason within the meaning of the section. Another ground alleged was mistake in the matter of copying out the petition of compromise. That ground may not by itself fall within the scope of sec. 623; but, taking it with the other ground to which we have already referred, it might be a good ground for review. The learned vakil for the opposite party has, however, called our attention to certain facts in connection with the applications that were made by or on behalf of the Petitioner--facts which would indicate as if the case of the Petitioner originally was not one of fraud but one of the mistake only, and that the matter of fraud was only an after thought. If that be really so it might be a sufficient ground to dismiss the application. But the Subordinate Judge has not gone into those facts, and we do not think that we are in a position to deal with them. The best course, in our judgment, would be to send back the proceedings to the Court below with a view that the petition for review presented to it may be entertained and be dealt with according to law. We make no order as to costs.