JUDGMENT Malik, CJ. - This revision has been filed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Agra on the 30th of July, 1948. Govind Behari and his four brothers owned a house in Agra. Govind Behari purchased the interest of three of his brothers and thus came to own a 4/5th share in the house. The 4/5th share owned by Govind Behari was sold to one Raj Bahadur by the Official Liquidator of Agra when Govind Behari became insolvent. Raj Bahadur later transferred the property to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff after that purchase filed the suit out of which this revision has arisen on the 3rd of August, 1946, for partition of the house. By the time that the suit was filed, the fifth brother of Govind Behari, who owned l/5th share in the house, had died leaving five sons and a widow. Two of the sons were minors and three were majors. These five sons and the widow were impleaded in the suit as Defendants. Various attempts were made to serve these Defendants, but without success. Ultimately, notice was served on the major Defendants by publication and the Judge decided on the date fixed for hearing to proceed ex-parte against them. Notice had not till then been served on the minor Defendants and fresh notices were issued to them and to the mother, who was Defendant No. 3, and 13th May, 1948, was fixed for filing the written statement, for examination of parties under Order 10, Rule 2, and for the filing of documents and determination of the issues that arose in the case. On the 15th of May no one appeared and the learned Judge appointed Defendant No. 3 guardian of her minor sons' Defendants 1 and 2 and held that the suit was to proceed ex-parte against Defendants 1 and 2. On the 2nd of June, 1948, the mother wanted to withdraw from guardianship. That application was dismissed. One of the major sons, Defendant No. 5, wanted to have the ex-parte order set aside. The Judge gave him an opportunity on the condition that he paid Rs. 250/- as costs. This order is dated the 2nd of June, 1948, and the time was given up to the 12th of July, 1948, to make the payment. One of the major sons, Defendant No. 5, wanted to have the ex-parte order set aside. The Judge gave him an opportunity on the condition that he paid Rs. 250/- as costs. This order is dated the 2nd of June, 1948, and the time was given up to the 12th of July, 1948, to make the payment. The costs were not paid and on the 12th of July the court decided that the case would be heard on the 30th of July, 1948, the date fixed. It was on the 29th of July, 1948, that a written statement was attempted to be filed by Shrimati Shanti on behalf of her two minor sons through one Mr. Prabhu Shankar, Pleader, The application is as follows: In the above noted suit the guardian of the minors is filing a written statement on behalf of the minors. It is prayed that issues be framed and some date for the final hearing be fixed. 2. No affidavit was filed in support of the application. No reasons were given why the written statement could not be filed on an earlier date. Under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the court has decided to proceed ex-parte against any Defendant under Order 9, Rule 6 and the Defendant at or before the date fixed for final hearing appears and assigns good cause for his nonappearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance. To allow Defendants to file the written statement which should have been filed on the 13th of May it was, therefore necessary to explain to the satisfaction of the lower court why the written statement could not be filed. On the date fixed. No such attempt was, however, made and the learned Judge passed on the 30th of July, 1948, the following order: The suit was ordered to proceed ex-parte against the Defendants 2 and 3 on 13-5-48. There is no prayer in this application to set aside that ex-parte order. The written statement cannot, therefore, be accepted. 3. On the date fixed. No such attempt was, however, made and the learned Judge passed on the 30th of July, 1948, the following order: The suit was ordered to proceed ex-parte against the Defendants 2 and 3 on 13-5-48. There is no prayer in this application to set aside that ex-parte order. The written statement cannot, therefore, be accepted. 3. Learned Counsel has urged that it is not necessary for a Defendant, against whom an ex-parte order had been passed, to have that order set aside if the Defendant can appear at any stage of the suit and proceed from that stage, without having the previous proceedings interfered with in any manner. That is quite correct, but the learned Judge had not passed any order preventing Defendants 1 and 2 from taking part in the proceedings on the date fixed for final hearing. All that he had said was that the written statement could not be accepted. The result of accepting the written statement at that stage would have been to settle issues in the case and to take all such other proceedings as had to be taken in a suit which is contested. On the 30th of July, 1948, the learned Judge recorded the Plaintiff's evidence and decreed the suit. An application was filed on behalf of the minors on the 21st of August, 1948, for setting aside the ex-parte order passed against the minor Defendants on the 30th of July, 1948. This application is supported by an affidavit of one Chandi Pd. and was filed by Shrimati Shanti Devi as guardian of the minors, through the same learned Counsel Mr. Prabhu Shankar pleader, Notice of this application was issued to the Plaintiff, but on the date fixed for hearing a statement was made by the learned Counsel that he did hot wish to press the application with the result that the application was dismissed on the 11th of September 1948. It was after the dismissal of this application that this revision filed in this Court on the 9th of November, 1948, for setting aside the order of the learned Judge passed on the 12th of July, 1948, refusing to accept the written statement. We have gone through the facts a little in detail, inasmuch as this was a case in which there was a likelihood that the interest of the minors might be jeorpardlsed. We have gone through the facts a little in detail, inasmuch as this was a case in which there was a likelihood that the interest of the minors might be jeorpardlsed. We cannot help feeling that a deliberate attempt was made in the trial court to delay the hearing of the suit. Learned Counsel has urged that the appointment of guardian was irregular. No such point was taken in the lower court, and if there was any irregularity in the appointment of the guardian, the minors' interest cannot be prejudiced, but in the absence of any explanation under Order 9, Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Judge was not bound to accept the written statement. 4. We are, therefore, of the view that this revision must fail and we dismiss it, but we make no order as to costs. The record of this case may be sent down to the lower court without unnecessary delay.