The appointment of the Vakil by the guardian continued in force until determined by the client or the Pleader, or until the client or the Pleader dies or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client.

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 July 1911. The decree was passed on the 2nd December 1912. The 1st defendant, the managing member of the defendants family, was appointed guardian of the minor defendants Nos. 3 and 4 on the 4th August 1911, and he executed a vakalat, to Mr. Chengayya to conduct the common defence on behalf of himself and of the minor defendants Nos. 3 and 4. The 3rd defendant states in his affidavit that he attained majority about February 1912, and it may be taken as true. Mr. Chengayya, who was appointed his Vakil when ho was a minor in August 1911, continued to represent him till the decree was passed in December 1912. The record was, however, not amended after February 1912 by describing the 3rd defendant as having become a major.

2. On the 20th day of January 1913, the 3rd defendant presented the petition to the District Court to set aside the decree as against him, treating it as I said before as an ex-parte decree. The affidavit in support of this petition significantly omits to state that he was not aware of the proceedings which were taking place in the Court with himself as a party both before and after February 1912 (when he became a major). The first paragraph of the affidavit says: The plaintiff did not issue notice to me after I attained majority and did not bring me on record. I was unrepresented in the in after I attained majority. The decree, therefore, was ex parte so far as I am concerned." Then paragraphs 2 to 9 of the affidavit attack the plaintiffs claim and the evidence let in by the plaintiff in the case. In fact, the grounds mentioned in the paragraphs 2 to 9 are exactly those which would be advanced (and which have been substantially advanced by the other defendants) in an appeal from the District Judges decree. There is not a word in the affidavit to indicate that the other defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were not contesting the suit properly or that they omitted to adduce any evidence for the common defence so as to prejudice the 3rd defendant. I here wish to emphasise what the 3rd defendant says in his affidavit that he was unrepresented in the suit only after he had attained majority. So far as representation before February 1912 is concerned, the affidavit clearly implies that he was properly represented. Treating this as an application to set aside an ex parte decree, i.e., as an application under Order IX, Rule 13, the application falls under Article 164 of the Limitation Act, and as the plaintiff in his counter-affidavit in the lower Court alleged that the appellant (3rd defendant) was aware all along of the proceedings in the suit, the time for the calculation of limitation begun on the date of the decree, which is also the date of the applicants knowledge of the decree. Thirty days there from expired on the 1st January 1913, and the appl