JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for setting aside an ex parte decree of the Calcutta Small Causes Court passed on the 12th December, 1918, tin the ground that there was fraud on the part of the present defendants who were the plaintiffs in the Small Causes Court. The lower appellate Court has found that the summons was not served on the plaintiffs who were the defendants in the Small Causes Court. There is, however, no finding by the lower appellate Court to the effect that there was fraudulent suppression of the summons at the instance of the plaintiff in the Small Cause Court. The lower appellate Court has, however, found that the documents relied upon by the defendants who were plaintiffs in the Court of Small Causes did not operate as acknowledgments of liability within the meaning of section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act inasmuch as they had not been signed by the defendants and on that ground the lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the decree had been obtained by the present defendants by misleading the Small Cause Court. Now it appears from the plaint in the Court of Small Causes which has been shown to us by Dr. Mitter who appeared on behalf of the respondents that in the plaint in the Court of Small Causes the plaintiffs therein stated that the defendants in the Small Cause Court had made payments on account of principal and interest and that the fact of the payment of the principal appeared in the handwriting of the then defendants in the letters written by and on behalf of the defendant and that therefore, the claim laid in the Small Causes Court was not barred by limitation. The letters which were relied upon by the then plaintiffs have been shown to us and it is char as also appears from the judgment of the lower appellate Court that they were written by and on behalf of the then defendants. In order that they might operate as acknowledgments of liability within the meaning of Section 19, it was necessary that they should have been signed by the defendants or by either of them. But they were not so signed. In order that they might operate as acknowledgments of liability within the meaning of Section 19, it was necessary that they should have been signed by the defendants or by either of them. But they were not so signed. But can it be said on these facts that the present defendants who were plaintiffs in the Small Cause Court were guilty of fraud in having succeeded in obtaining a decree from the Small Cause Court ? To our minds the statement of facts as set out above, points irresistibly to the conclusion that there was no fraud on the part of the present defendants who were the plaintiffs in the Small Cause Court; on the contrary, the plaintiffs were strictly accurate in the statement they made in the plaint in the Small Cause Court. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to go through the long catena of cases in this Court where it has been held that a previous decree can be set aside on the ground of fraud at the instance of the parties who succeeded in obtaining the previous decree. Each case must depend upon its own facts and Dr. Mitter has failed to bring to our notice any case where it has been laid down that an incomplete statement of a proposition of law in the plain constitutes fraud on the part of the plaintiff. 2. With these remarks, we set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and restore those of the first Court with costs in this Court and in the lower appellate Court.