JUDGMENT

1. On the 23rd April 1906, the defendant-appellant before us obtained an ex parte decree, against the plaintiff-respondent in the Calcutta Small Cause Court. The decree was sent for execution to the Munsif of Satkania, in the District of Chittagong, where the parties have their permanent residence, and on the 25th January 1907, a peon arrived at the house of the plaintiff-respondent with a writ of attachment against the movables of the judgment-debtor. This event constituting a cause of action, the plaintiff brought a suit in the local Munsif's Court and prayed (1) that the ex parte decree of the 23rd April 1906 be set aside as fraudulent and (2) that the said decree be declared null and void, inoperative and ineffectual, and that an order be made that it be not executed against the defendant (the present plaintiff.)

2. On the merits, the first Court found that the ex parte decree was fraudulent and liable to be declared null and void, but the Munsif proceeded to hold that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit by reason of Section 94 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit with reference to both the prayers of the plaintiff.

3. It is conceded that Section 94 of the Presidency Small Case Courts Act does not stand in the way of the plaintiff in this litigation. What that section provides is that no suit shall lie on any decree passed by such a Small Cause Court. This is not a suit on any decree. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge on this point is correct. But the learned Vakil for the defendant appellant has argued that the Satkania Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, and that the plaintiff should have taken action in the Calcutta Court of Small Causes where the ex parte decree was obtained against him.

4. It was laid down as far back as the year 1866 by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nilmani Burnick v. Puddo Lochan Chuckerbutty 5 W.R. Act X. 20 B.L.R. Sup. 379, that an action lies to set aside the decree of another Court on the ground "that it was obtained by fraud, the reason being, in the words of Sir Barnes Peacock, that the fraud gives a right of action to the party injured by it against the party guilty of the fraud".

5. That such an action may be maintained, is also laid down by Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Radha Raman Shaha v. Prannath Roy 28 C. 475 and Khagendra Nath Mohata v. Pran Nath Ray 29 I.A. 99 : 29 C. 395, and by this Court in Mahomed Golab v. Mahomed Sulliman 21 C. 612, Abdul Muzumdar v. Mahomed Gazi Chowdhry 21 C. 605, and in Nistarini Dossi v. Nundo Lal Bose 26 C. 891 : 3 C.W.N. 670, and (on appeal) in Nistarini Dassi v. Nundo Lal Bose 30 C. 369.

6. It admits of no doubt that the Calcutta Court of Small Causes had jurisdiction to vacate its own decree if it was obtained by fraud. Every Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of its process. But that is not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of another Court to set aside that decree, if it otherwise has jurisdiction to entertain the suit see Nilmani Burnich v. Puddo Lochan Chuckerbutty 5 W.R. Act X. 20 B.L.R. Sup. 379 and Sarthukram Maiti v. Nundo Ram Maiti 11 C.W.N. 579. Where a decree is set aside on the ground of fraud an injunction restraining execution is necessarily consequential thereon, even where no other relief is sought. Such a decree is in reality more than a mere declaratory decree.

7. The jurisdiction of the other Court in suits of this kind must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the CPC relating to jurisdiction.

8. If relief is sought in respect of some immovable property, the suit must be brought in the Court within whose local jurisdiction such property is situated. In other cases, the suit must be brought in the Court within whose local jurisdiction the cause of action arises--the cause of action here being the perpetration of fraud in obtaining the decree--or within whose local jurisdiction the defendant ordinarily resid