1. We think that the decision of the District Judge is wrong. The case of Periatambi Udayan v. Vellayya Goundan I.L.R. (1897) 21 m. 409 is exactly in point, and is directly opposed to the view taken by the. District Judge. We think that the view of Section 258, Civil Procedure Code, there taken, is correct. The only case quoted by the District Judge which is, m any way, opposed to this view is Ramayyar v. Ramayyar I.L.R. (1897) 21 M. 356 in which the Courp laid special, stress on the fact that a fraud had been practised on the Court; If this case is to be regarded as in conflict with the decision in Periathambi Udayan v. Vellaya Goundan I.L.R. (1897) 21 M. 409 as to the application of Section 258, C.P.C., to a case like the presenr, we are unable to follow it.
2. We set aside the order of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court.