Somayya, J.

1. The decision of this Court reported in Rajah of Ramnad v. Subramaniam Chettiar I.L.R.(1928) Mad. 465 is directly in point. There a suit was filed against a minor who was a ward of the Court of Wards. The suit was decreed against him and there were a number of appeals and the appeal in which this question arose was Appeal No. 57 of 1918. That is dealt with on pages 483 and 484 of the report. The objection raised was that no notice had been given to the ward, as provided under Section 49(1) of the Court of Wards Act and that therefore the decision of the lower Court should be reversed. Then their Lordships stated thus:

This suit has, however, been brought under Order 21, Rule 63, to set aside the order of Court dismissing the plaintiffs claim petition and it must be deemed to be a continuation of those proceedings and therefore no fresh notice to the appellant is necessary. The argument that a suit may be a continuation of the prior proceedings when the claim is allowed but is not such continuation when the claim is dismissed, is based on no recognised principle and appears to be untenable. In fact, in Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra for the purpose of court-fee,