ORDER : The facts giving rise to this revision in brief are that the plaintiff Gendalal filed a suit against Princess Sitabai Bhagwat in the Court of Civil Judge, First Class, Indore, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. After the defendant had been served, her Diwan filed an application that the defendant was suffering from paralysis, which rendered her infirm in mind and asked for an adjournment till a guardian was appointed by the Court of Wards. This application was disallowed and the case was fixed for an ex parte evidence of the plaintiff. Eventually the suit (C. O. S. No. 70/54) of the plaintiff was decreed on 14-4-54. On 10-5-1954, one Rajkanya Sabitri Bai Bausode, sister of the defendant filed an application (C. Misc. Case No. 90/54) under O. 9, R. 13, Civil P. C., for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against her sister on 14-5-1954, on the ground that the decree had been passed against the defendant when she was not in her proper senses and that the decree be set aside. This application, the Court allowed and set aside the ex parte decree. Against this order, the plaintiff has filed this revision and contends that the sister of the defendant had no right to file such an application and that the Court erred in allowing the application without there being any evidence on record, showing the mental incapacity of the defendant. 2. I have no doubt that the Court has bungled in this case. It is too obvious and has been rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the opponent Mr. Chitlay that it was wrong of the Court to have allowed the application without making any enquiry as to whether the defendant suffered from any mental infirmity as alleged by her sister. 3. The question for real consideration before me is whether in a case where an ex parte decree is passed against a minor or a person of unsound mind, without the defendant being represented by a duly qualified guardian can that ex parte decree be set aside under O. 9, R. 13, Civil P. C.? 4. The answer to the above question will depend upon whether a minor who has not been represented can be regarded a party to the suit or not? 4. The answer to the above question will depend upon whether a minor who has not been represented can be regarded a party to the suit or not? Before proceeding to consider the question, I would refer to O. 32, R. 15, Civil P. C., which places person of unsound mind in the same category as minors and makes all provisions in the Code for the minors applicable to persons who suffer from infirmity of mind. 5. Now a minor cannot be considered to be a party to a suit unless he is represented by a duly qualified guardian and a decree against such a minor will be one without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. There is conflict of opinion as to whether a minor not represented in the suit and against whom an ex parte decree is passed can or cannot apply under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte decree. The more approved view, with which I find myself, in agreement, is that he cannot. The reason is that under O. 9, R. 13 only a defendant can apply. Now a minor or for the matter of that a person of unsound mind who is not represented according to law cannot be deemed to be a party to the proceedings. In other words he is not a defendant at all. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Rashid-un-nisa v. Muhammad Ismail Khan, 31 All 572 : 36 Ind App 168 (A), have held that the objection of a minor, not represented in the suit, to execution of a decree does not fall under S. 47 of the Code and that the suit to set aside the decree and the sale in execution thereof is not barred by S. 47 of the Code. Their Lordships observed that "Section 244 (now S. 47) of the Code applies to question arising between the parties to the suit in which decree was passed, that is to say between parties who were properly made parties in accordance with the provisions of the Code." It follows from the above observations that a minor or for the matter of that a person of unsound mind, not properly represented in a suit and against whom an ex parte decree has been passed cannot be regarded as a defendant at all and in consequence he cannot apply under O. 9, R. 13, Civil P. C., to set aside an ex parte decree. This is a view of the High Court of Madras Armuga Goundan v. Peria Vanjiappa Goundan, AIR 1924 Mad 489 (1) (B) and also of the Judicial Commissioners Court, Nagpur Paramanand v. Lakhmichand, AIR 1922 Nag 249 (2) (C). No doubt the High Court of Allahabad in Bhagwan Dayal v. Param Sukh Dass, AIR 1917 All 477 (D) has taken a different view. To me it seems that the observations of the Privy Council referred to above have escaped the notice of the learned Judges, who took a different view. 6. For reasons stated above, I hold that no application under O. 9, R. 13, Civil P. C., lies in the instant case and that the trial Court acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the ex parte decree. The revision is allowed with costs. Revision allowed.