Ross, J.These are two applications for revision of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh setting aside the ex parte decrees is two mortgage suits brought by the plaintiffs petitioners against the opposite party. It appears that two mortgages were executed by Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the suit. Defendant No. 1 had four sons-defendants Nos. 5 to 8 and defendant No. 5 had two sons--defendants Nos. 13 and 14 defendant No. 2 had a son-defendant No. 9 and defendant No. 3 had three sons--defendants Nos. 10 to 12. All these Defendants except defendants No. 1 to 5 were minors. They were sought to be represented in the first instance by their fathers. Summonses were served on all the defendants and notices of the intention to appoint the fathers as guardians were served on the minor sons and on the fathers themselves. As the fathers did not appear to consent to act as guardians of their minor sons the court without further notice to the minors appointed a Pleader to represent them. As the Pleader was unable to get any answer to a registered letter sent to the minor defendants the suits were decreed ex parte, no defence having been entered. One of the major defendants having applied without success to get the ex parte decrees set aside the present applications were made on behalf of certain of the minor Defendants through their mothers.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that although the notices above-mentioned were proved to have been issued yet because of the want of notice of the intention to appoint a Pleader as guardian the whole suit was bound to fail and the decree was liable to be set aside. The effect of irregularity in the appointment of a guardian to a suit has been considered by this Court in the case of Pande Satdeo Narain v. Ramayan Tewari 1921 Pat. 242 where it was laid down that "where a minor is properly a party to a suit, that is to say, if he is represented on the record by a guardian not disqualified from acting, the jurisdiction of the court to try and determine the cause as against the minor is complete, and such jurisdiction will not be ousted on proof that the court did not, follow the appropriate procedure for the appointment of the guardian, for example the provisions of Order 32, Rule 3(4) or Rule 4(3), Civil Procedure Code." In view of this authority it seems to me that the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong in holding that the absence of this notice had the effect that the minors were not represented in the suit at all especially in the absence of any proof of prejudice to the minors. The consequence is that there is no good ground for setting aside the decrees whether under Order 9, Rule 13 or under other powers of the court.

3. I would therefore allow these applications and set aside the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and dismiss the petitions for setting aside the ex parte decree. The applicants are entitled to their costs. Hearing fee two gold mohurs.

Das, J.

4. I agree.