1. We have heard all that the learned vakil who appears for the appellant could say on behalf of his client, and we find ourselves in accord with what was laid down by the Subordinate Judge. We were referred to the case of Radha Raman Shaha v. Pran Nath Roy (1901) I.L.R., 28 Calc., 475 and also to the case of Khagendra Nath Mahata v. Pran Nath Roy (1902) I.L.R., 29 Calc., 395, but in our opinion the facts of this case are, as the learned Judge also points out, distinct from the facts of those cases. In the Calcutta cases there were specific allegations that the decree had been obtained by fraud and the execution proceedings which followed were similarly tainted with fraud. In the case out of which this appeal has arisen the only real fraud alleged is connected with the non-service of summons. This has already been fully gone into and decided against the appellant in the application which he filed under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We dismiss the appeal with costs.