The judgment established that a decree may be set aside if it is obtained through a deliberate conspiracy to deceive the Court and the parties involved, extending beyond mere forgery or perjury.

Wadsworth, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for (he cancellation of one of two decrees obtained by the present appellant, the first defendant in the Court of first instance against the plaintiff. The facts which have been found by the Courts below make out a very unusual story. The plaintiff was a convict in jail. He had executed a promissory note in favour of the second defendant, which promissory note had been transferred to the first defendant and a small payment had been made to the first defendant after the assignment. It has been found by the Courts below that the first defendant evolved a very cunning conspiracy whereby his claim against the plaintiff was duplicated in such a way as not to arouse the suspicion of the plaintiff and to prevent him from defending the two suits, one filed upon a forged promissory : note and the other filed upon the genuine promissory note. According; to the findings of fact the first defendant, knowing that the plaintiff was in jail forged what is almost a duplicate of the genuine promissory note, making it of the same date for the same amount with the same attesting witnesses, together with one additional attestor, and transferred at the same time to the same first defendant. It is found that, when the suit on the forged promissory note Ex. G was filed, the summons was served upon the plaintiff in jail on 7th August, 1935 and he, thinking that this was a suit on the genuine promissory note to which he had no defence, took no action to contest the suit. A decree followed on 7th September, 1935. About a fortnight before this decree a second suit, O.S. No. 592 of 1935, was filed on the basis of Ex. A; the genuine promissory note and the summons in the second suit was served on the present plaintiff in jail on 5th September, 1935, that is to say, nearly a month after the previous summons and two days before the decree in the earlier suit. The present plaintiff not having the summons in the previous suit in his custody because of jail rules, was under the impression that the second summons was another summons in the first suit and did not notice the difference in the suit number and the slight difference in the amount. Consequently the plaintiff thought that no purpose would be served by doing anything about this second summons. The second suit was also decreed. It is found by the Courts below that the evidence upon which the second decree was obtained was the genuine evidence of the original promisee : and the attesting witnesses who were quite innocent of any knowledge that a fraud had been played in the earlier suit. The decree in the earlier suit is found to have been obtained by putting forward some person unknown who impersonated the promisee and gave evidence in support of the forged promissory note and also by putting forward another individual as the third attestor to the promissory note whose name and address did not correspond to those of any known person. An attempt was made on behalf of the defence to establish the fact that this third witness to the forged promissory note was an individual who had died shortly before the trial of the present suit. The Courts below have rejected this story and have refused to believe that the person alleged to have died in a place some seventeen miles away was the same person as the witness-who is put forward as having signed this promissory note. According to the findings, therefore, the first defendant got two decrees, one on a forged note supported by two witnesses each of whom must have been personating some one else and the other on the true promissory note supported by three witnesses who were deliberately kept in ignorance of the earlier suit and the present plaintiff was hood winked into not defending either suit by the trick which was played upon him, of filing the suits and issuing notices in rapid succession so that in the circumstances in which he was placed he was led to believe that both notices related to the sam