1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff from the concurrent judgments of the lower Courts dismissing his suit for the setting aside of the ex-parte decree in the earlier suit No. 332 of 1950 against his father and subsequently after his death, against the legal representatives including himself. The grounds averred are that the plaintiff was not noticed as a minor, there was no order appointing a guardian, and the mother-natural guardian has also not been noticed. In spite of the destruction of the nonpermanent papers of the file of the old suit, the broad facts are ascertainable and are mostly common ground. The real questions are firstly, whether in the circumstances of the case the irregularities in regard to the notices and representation of the minor legal representative and the appointment of the guardian, are cured by the fact that somebody (apparently at the instance of his major brother) did at some stage represent him. Secondly, whether the second suit itself is maintainable because an application of this plaintiff (through the natural guardian) under Order 9, Rule 13 had been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are the following: suit No. 332 of 1950 had been