The main legal point established in the judgment is that a judgment may be set aside on the ground of fraud, but the alleged fraud must be extraneous to the matters adjudicated by the court. The court also emphasized the discretionary power to set aside a judgment and the need for the party seeking relief to demonstrate freedom from laches and turpitude.

1. This is an application made under Rule 8 of the rules applicable to the Godaveri Agency asking us to direct the agent to review his judgment in an appeal by which he confirmed the decree of the Assistant Agent of Bhadrachalam. The facts which led up to the case may be very briefly stated. The appellant who was the defendant in the first Court, instituted O.S. No. 16 of 1906 in that Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 643-9-0 from the present plaintiff alleged to be due on dealings between the parties. The present plaintiff filed a written statement alleging that some items in the account sued on had been wrongly debited against him and denying the accuracy and reliability of the accounts put in by the present defendant. The Commissioner was appointed to scrutinise the accounts and to report on the result. The present plaintiff did not put in an appearance on the day fixed for the hearing of the suit. The present defendant was examined as a witness and a decree was passed in his favor for the amount sued for. An appeal was preferred by the present plaintiff to the Agent, but the decree was confirmed by him and this Court also refused to interfere with the appellate decree of the Agent. The present suit has been instituted to set aside the former decree on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and for an injunction to restrain the defendant from executing it. The only allegation of fraud that was insisted on at the hearing was that the defendant, having bought from the plaintiff timber worth Rs. 1026-14-0 did not give him credit for the whole amount but only for Rs. 610-2-0. It will be observed that this allegation is at variance with the defence made by the present plaintiff in O.S. No. 16 in which his allegation was that certain items were wrongly debited against him in the defendants account. In answer to the present suit, the defendant alleged that the contract for the sale of timber referred to by the plaintiff was made on his behalf by his son in his absence, that it was a part of the agreement that the timber should be of a certain quality, that what was supplied by the plaintiff was not of the quality agreed to, that he, in consequence refused to ratify the sale, and that the plaintiff agreed to an arrangement whereby the defendant sold the timber at Rajahmundry and credited the actual sale proceeds (610-2-0) after deducting the expenses, to the plaintiffs account. The Assistant Agent at first dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by the rule of res judicata in consequence of the previous judgment and that the ground alleged by the plaintiff for setting aside the decree did not amount to such fraud as would entitle him to get the previous judgment vacated. On appeal the Agent set aside that judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs allegation in the plaint that the defendant fraudulently kept back certain accounts from examination by the Commissioner was an averment of fraud which would entitle him to have the previous judgment vacated, if he could prove the allegation. After remand, witnesses were examined on both sides. The defendant also put in two documents in support of his case. The Assistant Agent, however, came to the conclusion that the defendant did not succeed in proving the arrangement set up by him. He did not find that any accounts were withheld by the defendant from the Commissioner at, the trial of O.S. No. 16 as alleged in the plaint. Having thus found that the defendant ought to have given credit for Rs. 1026-14-0 and not for Rs. 610-2-0 to the plaintiff, he observed " To this extent, therefore, the entry in defendants accounts was fraudulent and defendant was not entitled to the decree he obtained in O.S. No. 16 of 1906 against plaintiff on the strength of these accounts." He, therefore, set aside the decree and granted an injunction restraining the defendant from executing it. He concluded with a somewhat unintelligible observation. " As there is good reason to conclude th