1. In Venkatappa Naick v. Subba Naick I.L.R. (1905) M. 179 the Court decided that a suit could be instituted to set aside a decree on the ground that it had been obtained by false evidence tendered at the trial and by the suppression of evidence. On reference to the printed papers it appears that the alleged suppression of evidence consisted in the non-production of a promissory note the very existence of which the defendant denied when giving evidence in the case. There has been considerable difference of opinion in England as to whether an action would lie to set aside the judgment of an English Court on the ground that it had been obtained by perjured evidence. In India the weight of authority appears to be in favour of holding that such a suit will not lie for the reasons given by Sundara Ayyar, J. in Chinnayya v. Ramanna I.L.R. (1912) Mad. 203 by the Calcutta Court in Munshi Mosuful Huq v. Surendra Nath Ray 16 C.W.N 1002 and by the Allahabad Court in Janki Kuar v. Lachmi Narain I.L.R. (1915) All. 535 We are therefore of opinion that Venkatappa Naick v. Subba Naick I.L.R. (1905) M. 179 was wrongly decided and must be overruled.