Dayal, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant facts are these-

The defendant obtained an ex parte decree for Rs. 5019/9/6 in Commercial Suit No. 345 of 1952 from the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court against the plaintiffs. The decree-holder proceeded with the execution of the decree and filed Execution Case No. 5 of 1953 in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Ranchi where the decree had been transferred for execution. In execution, the decree-holder attached the house of the plaintiffs and wanted satisfaction of the decree by the sale of the house. The plaintiffs having come to know of the execution case, filed an objection.

The objection was dismissed on 18th November, 1953. On 7th December, 1953, the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 64 of 1953 for a declaration that the decree passed in the above mentioned commercial suit was not binding on them as the same had been obtained fraudulently by suppression of summonses. A prayer for perpetual injunction was also made for restraining the defendant from proceeding with the execution case. On the same day, the plaintiffs also applied for a tempora