1. Devi Prasad and Balgobind were plaintiffs in a suit for possession of certain property. Their suit was dismissed, the Court of first instance having found that an oral Will had been proved which was fatal to their ease. After the suit had been dismissed, the plaintiffs petitioned the Court for a review of judgment. The Court granted the application and then came to the conclusion that the application should be allowed and allowed it. From this order allowing the application, an appeal has been filed to us. Now no Court can grant an application for review upon the allegation, and that is the only allegation in this case, that new evidence has been discovered which was not within his knowledge without strict proof of such allegation. The only proof that has been shown to us and the only proof that exists in this case of this allegation is a statement made by Balgobind, one of the plaintiffs, and an affidavit of the vaguest possible kind from Devi Prasad, although the former mentions that his knowledge after the decision of the suit was derived from one Risal, he made no attempt to put Risal before the Court in support of what he said. This is not strict proof of an allegation of this kind. A decree once passed must not be lightly opened. There must be strong evidence showing that the plaintiff, when he brought the suit, had been diligent, had procured all the evidence that was forthcoming and had taken care to put it before the Court. We find nothing of the kind here and the judgment of the Subordinate Judge allowing the application is equally weak. We, therefore, allow this appeal and, setting aside the order of the 25th of April 1910, restore that of the 1st March 1910, with costs which in this Court include fees on the higher scale.