JUDGMENT Jenkins, C.J. - The present Plaintiff sued the Defendants, and a compromise was alleged to have been effected. A decree was passed in accordance with that compromise, and it is not suggested that there was any failure to observe the provisions of Order XXIII. The present Plaintiff No. 1 subsequently came to Court not by way of appeal from an order made under order XXIII, but for a review of the decree, and his application was based upon the allegation that he had not consented. He adopted the proper procedure in so applying. The result of his application, however, was unfavourable to him, and it was dismissed. Subsequently this suit was brought, and the Applicant for review as well as his co-Plaintiff in the former suit are the Plaintiffs in this suit. There is the same allegation of no consent, and it is further suggested that there was fraud. Fraud has been negatived, so that the only ground of relief is the absence of consent. In these circumstances, it appears to me that this suit should have been dismissed ; for, I think the only question on which a decision has been given in the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs was one which was decided adversely in the former litigation. This view is in accordance with the decision in Ram Gopal v. Prasanna Kumar 2 C. L. J. 508 : s. c. 10 C. W. N. 527 (1905), which we treat as a decision entitled to respect, and we therefore follow that decision notwithstanding what has been said in Gulab Koer v. Badshah Bahadur 10 C. L. J. 420 : s. c. 13 C. W. N. 1 (1909). We may point out that in this last named case the relief sought was based on fraud and so it has no application to the present case. 2. The result is that the appeal must be allowed, and the suit dismissed with costs throughout.