Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. This is an appeal by the 3rd defendant in the suit against the order of the District Court refusing his application to set aside the decree passed against him. That application to set aside treated the decree as an ex parte decree so far as he was concerned. Turning to the decree itself, I find the wording is as follows:--"This suit coming on for hearing in the presence of Messrs. T. V. Venkatarama Aiyar and R. Subbarayudu, Vakils for the plaintiffs, and Mr. M. Chengayya, Vakil for defendants, this Court doth order and decree that plaintiffs do recover from the family properties of all the defendants Rs. 4,204-6-2 and from 1st defendant personally and from the family properties of all the defendants Rs. 1,459-0-6, etc." Thus on the face of it, the decree was passed against all the four defendants, including the appellant (3rd defendant), in the presence of and after hearing their Vakil and it is, therefore, on its face not an ex parte decree against him. The suit was brought on a promissory note executed by or under the directions of the father of the 4th defendant. The 3rd defend-ant was a minor about seventeen years old when this suit was brought in J