The petitioners are minors. They were defendants in O. S. No. 63 of 1941 on the file of the District Munsiff of Rajahmundry. That suit was a mortgage suit and the plaintiff obtained a decree for sale. The property was brought to sale at a court-auction on the 12th October, 1943. On the 1st of November, 1943, the petitioners represented by their mother filed an application under Order 21, rule 90. In the suit, their uncle had been appointed guardian ad litem and that appointment had never been cancelled. On the 22nd November, 1943, the petitioners filed a security bond in the proceedings under Order 21, rule 90. The bond was returned to them on the 26th November, 1943. The reason for that return is stated as follows in an endorsement on the affidavit:

“1. The security bond should clearly state whether the property described belongs exclusively to the surety or whether it belongs to the minor judgment-debtors.

2. An affidavit stating the interest of the surety in the property should be filed.”

This endorsement closed with the following remark:

“Returned. Time till 3-12-43.”

There is a further endorsement on the affidavit under date 3rd December, 1943, as follows:

“An affidavit in s