JUDGMENT
Napier, J.
1. It is argued that even though the petition was dismissed under Order XXI, Rule 57, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decision that the decree shall be executed under Order XXI, Rule 23, is’ res judicata. I cannot accept this argument. In my opinion, the order is vacated by the subsequent dismissal. The language of the Privy Council in Mungul Pershad Dichit v. Grija Kant Lahiri 8 C. 51 : 11 C.L.R. 113 : 8 I.A. 123 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. 249, points to the order being still in force and that is the ratio decidendi in Lakshmanan Chetti v. Kuttayan Chetti 24 M. 669. If Sheoraj Singh v. Kameshar Nath 24 A. 282 : A.W.N. (1902) 63, decides anything different, I cannot follow it. I, therefore, do not decide on Mr. Narasimha Aiyangar’s other contention that he must be allowed to show now that he had no notice of the prior application, he not having been able to do so at the time owing to the application having been dismissed.
2. The petition is dismissed with costs.
