JUDGMENT Fletcher, J. - This Appeal, in my opinion, must be dismissed. The suit was brought to set aside an ex parte decree which had been obtained against a woman of the town for goods sold and delivered to her. That ex parte decree was executed and the money was obtained ; and, subsequently, the Defendant in the first suit brought the present suit against the original Plaintiff to set aside the ex parte decree. It seems to me that the judgments of the two lower Courts are conclusive on the matter. The Judge found affirmatively that the fact of the previous suit was not known to the present Plaintiff and he also found that the said suit was, in fact, a false suit. On these allegations, it seems to me that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is correct. The decisions of this Court on the point to which our attention has been invited are the two latest decisions. One, of my learned brother who is now sitting with me and Mr. Justice D. Chatterjee in the case of Lakhmi Charan v. Nur Ali I. L. R 38 Cal. 936 : s. c. 15 C. W. N 1010 (1911), and the other, of Carnduff and Champman, JJ., in the case of Mosuful Hug v. Surendra Nath Ray 16 C. W N. 1002 (1912). The decision in Lakhmi Charan v. Nur Ali I. L. R 38 Cal. 936 : s. c. 15 C. W. N 1010 (1911), it is said, is opposed to the decision in Mosuful Huq v. Surendra Nath Ray 16 C. W N. 1002 (1912). In my opinion when the two cases are closely looked at, the two decisions are not opposed to each other : but the two decisions can be reconciled in the same way as the English decisions which have been cited to us can be reconciled. In Lakhmi Charan v. Nur Ali I. L. R 38 Cal. 936 : s. c. 15 C. W. N 1010 (1911), the findings of fact which are set out in the judgment show quite clearly that the Plaintiff, that is, a party to the suit knew that the case which was put forward before the Court was, in fact, a false one. 936 : s. c. 15 C. W. N 1010 (1911), the findings of fact which are set out in the judgment show quite clearly that the Plaintiff, that is, a party to the suit knew that the case which was put forward before the Court was, in fact, a false one. It was not a case where an application was made to set aside a judgment on the ground that it was obtained by perjury but it was a case of a party to the suit practising a fraud on the Court by putting forward before the Court a case which was a false one. The case in Mosuful Huq v. Surendra nath Ray 16 C. W N. 1002 (1912), as appears from the head-note, only decides that a decree obtained in a suit cannot be set aside in a subsequent suit brought for that purpose on the mere proof that the previous decree was obtained by perjured evidence. That was exactly the point which was decided in Baker v. Wordswarth 67 L. J. R. Q. B. D. 301 (1898). As far as I know, nobody ever challenged the proposition that the mere fact that a decree has been obtained by perjury is not a sufficient ground for setting it aside. A different consideration arises where a false case is placed before the Court. We have got the decisions in Abouloff v. Oppenheimer 10 Q. B. D. 295 (1882) and Vadala v. Lawes 25 Q. B. D. 310 (1890), which show quite clearly that, if the case which was placed before the Court was a false one, the Court has jurisdiction in a subsequent suit to set aside the decree which was obtained by fraud practised on the Court. It seems to me, on the findings of the lower Appellate Court in this case, that the Plaintiff on the previous suit presented a fraudulent case before the Court and that the learned Judge had jurisdiction to set aside that decree. The present appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissed with costs. N.R. Chatterjea, J. I agree.