1. This is an appeal by the defendants in Original Suit No.9 of 1957 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge at Bangalore, against an order dated the 9th of February, 1959, granting the application of the respondent - plaintiffs in Miscellaneous Case No.109 of 1958 for review of the judgment dated the 30th of October, 1958, in the said suit.

2. The plaintiffs who are a firm of traders had originally filed against the appellant - defendants Original Suit No.111 of 1956 for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,117-1-11. The plaintiffs' firm had not then been registered under the Partnership Act. The plaintiffs therefore sought, and were granted leave to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one. Accordingly the plaintiffs filed subsequently Original Suit No.9 of 1957. The defendants also are described as a firm by name 'C. Haji Abdul Shukoor and Co., represented by seven persons described as its partners. The person named Haji Abdul Shukoor is said to be dead, and the seven persons shown as partners of the defendants' firm are his wife and children. The first four are shown as majors, aged respectively 42, 22, 21, and 20 years. Defendants 5, 6 and 7 are shown as minors represented by their guardian and mother, the first defendant.

3. Although paragraph 7 of the plaint said that the Court may be pleaded to pass a decree for Rs.13, 117-1-11 together with current interest, costs and other expenses, only a sum of Rs.100/- was paid by way of court - fee. The office raised an objection as to the sufficiency of the court - fee. Apparently, in answer to that objection, corrections were made in plaint - paragraphs 4 and 5 to make it appear that the suit was one for a mere declaration. The last but one sentence in the fourth paragraph which originally read 'The plaintiff - firm therefore are constrained to file this suit for recovery of the said amount xx xx' was corrected into 'The plaintiff - firm therefore are constrained to file this suit for a declaration that they are entitled for recovery of the said amount xx xx'. To the last sentence to that para 'Hence this suit', the words 'for a declaration' were added. The 5th paragraph as corrected read as follows:
"The value of the suit for purposes of Court - fee and Jurisdiction is Rs.13,117-1-11 and a Court Fee of Rs.800/- was paid. The suit was withdrawn. The present suit is for declaration. A fixed Court fee of Rs.100/- is herewith paid."
But, the prayer contained in paragraph 7 was left uncorrected. The first issue raised in the suit was whether the Court - fee paid is sufficient.

4. The suit claim was in respect of the value of goat and sheep skins despatched by the plaintiffs to the defendants upon orders placed by the defendants. It was also averred that the defendants had signed the account pattis said to have been despatched by the plaintiffs' firm.

5. Though it is not so stated in the plaint, the judgment dated the 30th of October 1958 states that it was the fourth defendant that came to Bangalore to place orders and it was also the fourth defendant that signed the account pattis. One of the pleas raised in the written statement was that the fourth defendant was a minor at the time of the suit transactions.

6. Apparently, after noticing the corrections made in the plaint purporting to convert the suit into one for a mere declaration, the defendants by way of amendment to the written statement raised a further plea that the suit for a mere declaration was not maintainable in law. That was made the subject - matter of additional issue No.10.

7. By its judgment dated the 30th of October, 1958, the Court below dismissed the suit. On the first issue as to court - fee, the Court below merely stated 'so far as the payment of court - fee is concerned, suit having been launched only for declaration, the court - fee paid appears to me to be sufficient'. At the same time, on the additional issue, the Court held that 'a suit for declaration alone would not be competent' and th