1. This application in revision bas been referred to a Division Bench by an order of a learned Single Judge dated the 8th October, 1982.

2. This is an application by the plaintiffs-respondents who obtained an ex parte decree against the minor son and minor daughter of one Qudrat Mian in Title Suit No. 290 of 1968.

3. The title suit was filed by the petitioners father, Md. Sayeed, in the Court of the Munsif, Purnea, for a declaration of title and recovery of possession. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, who were minors, were sued through their mother, Bibi Samima Bano (opposite party No. 3), the natural guardian. Notices meant for the minors seem to have been served on their guardian, namely, their mother, but she did not take any step on behalf of the minors in the suit. The learned trial Court thereupon appointed one Bhola Nath Burman, Advocate, as the guardian of the two minors. On the 4th August, 1976, the title suit was decreed ex parte. It may be stated here that the pleader guardian, Bhola Nath Burman, also did not take any step in the suit and did not even file any written statement. The said minors thereafter filed Miscellaneous Case No. 8 of 1977 through their next friend, Abdul Aziz, who was their maternal uncle under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restore the suit to its original number stating, inter alia, that due to the gross negligence of the said pleader guardian they could not defend the suit. It was also stated that on the 9th Jan., 1977, their maternal uncle, Abdul Aziz, came to know from one Ramanand Mishra that the suit had been decreed ex parte. On the 11th Feb., 1977, the above mentioned Miscellaneous Case No. 8 of 1977 was filed.

3A. The petitioners contested the miscellaneous case and contended that the miscellaneous case, having been filed by the next friend, was not maintainable and that the miscellaneous case was barred by limitation. The learned Munsif held that the case was maintainable, but he found that the same had been filed after the period of limitation and, therefore, dismissed it. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal which was numbered as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15 of 1978 and was disposed of by the Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Purnea. The learned Subordinate Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the mistake was committed by the Court inasmuch as the pleader guardian was not lawfully appointed by the Court and, therefore, the question of limitation did not arise. The miscellaneous appeal was, therefore, allowed and the ex parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 290 of 1968 was set aside.

4. Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the miscellaneous case was barred by limitation and the learned lower appellate Court has erred in holding that the question of limitation did not arise in the case. He also contended that the miscellaneous case was not maintainable at the instance of the next friend, Md. Aziz, maternal uncle of the minors.

5. We have stated above that the two minors were put under the guardianship of their mother by the plaintiffs, but she did not take any step in the suit on their behalf. It was thereupon that the Court appointed a pleader guardian named Bhola Nath Burman to represent the minors. Order 32, Rule 3 (4) of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) provides that "no order shall be made on any application under this rule except upon notice to any guardian of the minor appointed or declared by an authority competent in that behalf, or where there is no such guardian, upon notice to the father or where there is no father, to the mother, or where there is no father or mother, to other natural guardian of the minor, ... ... ... and after hearing any objection which may be urged on behalf of any person served with notice under this sub-rule". There is nothing on the record to show that any, notice was given to the mother guardian of t