Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Two points have been pressed in this appeal:

(1) that Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to the facts of the present case, and, (2) that the plaintiffs-appellants suit is not barred by res judicata.

(2) In order to appreciate and decide the points raised in the appeal, it is necessary to know a few facts. A decree for mesne profits was obtained by the respondents on the 14th January, 1933 against the plaintiffs-appellants, their father, and others. Before the decree was put into execution, the plaintiffs, and some others, applied for setting aside the ex parte decree for mesne profits, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Meanwhile, the decree for mesne profit, was executed in Execution Case No. 159 of 1931.

2. The application of the plaintiffs under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, and the ex parte decree for mesne profits, as against the plaintiffs also, was set aside on the ground that the plaintiffs, who were minors then, were not duly represented, and, as such, the decree against them was void. The executing court on receipt of the order, setting aside the decree under execut