1. The facts of this case are that a suit was decreed on contest against certain defendants and ex parte against certain other defendants, who, it appears, were minors. The minors applied to have the ex parte decree made against them set aside. They made default in appearance and their application under Order IX Was rejected.

2. Thereupon they made a further application under Order IX, asking that the dismissal of their former application under Order IX for default should be set aside. The lower Court has made that order after going into the merits of the case. In appeal it is contended that the order was made without jurisdiction inasmuch as Order IX has no application to applications under Order IX.

3. Having regard to the Full Bench decision in the case of Bhubaneswar Prasad Singh v. Tilakdhari Lal 4 P. L. J. 135=49 I. C. 619= (1919) P. H. C. C. 75 (F. B.). We must hold that in this Court at least no applications under Order IX will lie against an order made under Order IX. The order made by the lower Court is therefore set aside. We are asked to regard the order as made under Order XLVII. That we cannot do for it was an order made by an officer other than the officer who made the original order, nor can we say that Section 153 has any application to the matter. The dismissal order was not an error or defect in the proceedings, it may have been an erroneous order as made on the merits. The only remedy open to the aggrieved minors is to appeal against the original order made under Order IX.

4. The application is therefore allowed with costs and the order restoring the original application under O. IX is set aside. The original applications will stand dismissed for default subject to any appeal that may be made against them. This order will govern the analogous cases. We give a consolidated hearing fee of three gold mohurs. The record may be sent down as early as possible.