Judgement ORDER:- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-9-1972 by which the learned Sadar Munsiff No. 1, Silchar has set aside the ex parte decree dated 18-5-1965 passed in Money Suit No. 323 of 1964 and the execution proceedings in pursuance thereof. 2. The facts leading to this petition may briefly be stated : 3. Petitioner No. 1 M/s. Budhai Nepal Chandra Lalit Mohan Saha firm (registered) instituted Money Suit No. 323 of 1964 against opposite parties Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and petitioner No. 2 described as Proprietor, of M/s. Jayatara Stores, for realisation of an amount of Rs. 1,866.45 (P) in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff at Silchar. The suit was decreed ex parte on 18-5-1965. Properties of the defendants-judgment debtors were attached and sold in Money Execution Case No. 80 of 1965 on 22-2-1966 and the plaintiff decree-holder purchased the same with the permission of the Court. Delivery of possession of the properties purchased were also taken through Court on 26-4-1966. At the time of sale of the properties in question opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6 were in possession. It is stated that opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6 were tenants in respect of the properties in question and attorned to the auction purchaser. But they having defaulted in payment of rent petitioner No. 1 brought two ejectment suits against them being T. S. No. 275 of 1969 and T. S. No. 276 of 1969. While those two ejectment suits were pending in the Munsiffs Court at Silchar, opposite party No. 1 Sudhangshu Ranjan Dev and opposite party No. 2 Sushendra Ranjan Dev filed an application on 30-1-70 under Order 9, R.13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 18-5-1965 passed in Money Suit No. 323/64 against petitioner No. 1 M/s. Budhai Nepal Chandra Lalit Mohan Saha Firm (Registered) and petitioner No. 2 Sashanka Sekhar Dev in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff No. 1, Silchar and the case was numbered as Misc. Case No. 43 of 1970. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 filed two separate objections in the Misc. Case in which four P. Ws. and 2 D. Ws. were examined and by the impugned order dated 30-9-72 the learned Munsiff set aside the ex parte decree and also execution proceedings in pursuance thereof. 4. Case No. 43 of 1970. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 filed two separate objections in the Misc. Case in which four P. Ws. and 2 D. Ws. were examined and by the impugned order dated 30-9-72 the learned Munsiff set aside the ex parte decree and also execution proceedings in pursuance thereof. 4. In the application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, the petitioners (Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 in this revision petition) contended that the summonses on the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 Sushendra Ranjan Dev and Sudhangshu Ranjan Dev were sup-pressed by defendant No. 1 Sashanka Sankar Dev, who is opposite party No. 2 in the Misc. Case and the petitioner No. 2 in this revision petition and that the summonses on the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were not at all served. It was also stated that on 4-12-1964 and 18-5-1965 on which Money Suit No. 323 of 1964 was filed and decreed ex parte respectively defendant No. 3 Sushendra Ranjan Dev was a minor. The opposite parties in the Misc. Case filed objections stating that summonses were served on the defendants and defendant No. 3 was a major. 5. On the pleading of the parties in the Misc. Case the learned Munsiff framed the following points for decision:- (1) Whether the Misc. Case is maintainable? (2) Whether the petition is barred by limitation? (3) Whether the petitioner No. 2 was a minor at the time of the original suit? and (4) Whether the summonses were duly served on the petitioners? 6. The learned Munsiff took up Point No. 3 first and having considered all the evidence on record he came to the definite finding that petitioner No. 2, that is, defendant No. 3 in the Money suit was a minor when the ex parte decree was passed against him in Money Suit No. 323 of 1964. The learned Munsiff also found on consideration of the materials on record that summonses were not served on the petitioners, that is, defendants No. 3 and 4 in the Money Suit. 7. The learned Munsiff then took up point No. 2 and after considering the materials on record came to the finding that the petitioners came to know of the ex parte decree only on 3-1-1970 and therefore the application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code filed on 30-1-1970 was within the period of limitation. 7. The learned Munsiff then took up point No. 2 and after considering the materials on record came to the finding that the petitioners came to know of the ex parte decree only on 3-1-1970 and therefore the application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code filed on 30-1-1970 was within the period of limitation. 8. Regarding the first point the learned Munsiff held that gross injustice would be done if the minor defendant were not given an opportunity to fight out the original suit. Considering the materials on record the learned Munsiff set aside the ex parte decree as stated hereinabove. 9. Mr. P. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in this revision petition submits that the learned Munsiff has found that the Defendant No. 3 Sushendra Ranjan Dev was a minor when the money suit No. 323 of 1964 was filed and ex parte decree in question was passed in that suit. Since defendant No. 3 was a minor and not represented in the suit by a legal guardian, he cannot be legally deemed to be a defendant in the suit and therefore, the ex parte decree is not operative against him. It is submitted that if a minor is impleaded in a suit as defendant without appointing a guardian for him, he cannot be said to be a party in the suit and no decree passed in such a suit can bind the minor. That being so no application under O.9, R.13, Civil Procedure Code is maintainable against the ex parte decree inasmuch as an application under Order 9, Rule 13. Civil Procedure Code for setting aside an ex parte decree may be made only by a defendant. 10. It has been found as a fact by the learned Munsiff that defendant No. 3 in Money suit No. 323/64 was a minor when the ex parte decree was passed. That being so, in law defendant No. 3 could not be treated as a defendant in that suit and the ex parte decree passed in the suit cannot be binding against the minor defendant. Consequently an application by the minor defendant No. 3, who cannot be treated as a defendant in the case, is not entitled to file an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. Consequently an application by the minor defendant No. 3, who cannot be treated as a defendant in the case, is not entitled to file an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. Thus the petition under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code by the minor defendant though may be major at the time of filing the application, is not maintainable. 11. Since defendant No. 3 was a minor and not represented by a guardian the question of serving of summons on the minor also does not arise. The minor if aggrieved may have a remedy by way of a suit and he may get the benefit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act. In any view of the matter, the ex parte decree is not effective against the minor defendant and that being so, in fact there is no necessity to set aside that decree so far as the minor defendant is concerned. Because, in law that ex parte decree is no decree at all so far as the minor is concerned. 12. That an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable by a minor defendant not represented by any guardian is supported by the decision in Probhat Kumar Chatterjee v. Sm. Latika Debi, AIR 1953 Cal 196 and the decision in Gendalal v. Sitabai Bhagwat, AIR 1957 Madh Bha 10. 13. We are thus, left with the application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code by petitioner No. 1. 14. His case is that no summons was served on him in the suit and the summons was suppressed by the defendant No. 1 in collusion with the plaintiff. Definite allegations were made against the defendant No. 1 who is opposite party No. 2 in the Misc. Case. 15. The learned Munsiff in his order has observed that the petitioners specifically stated in the petition that summonses were not served in the original suit. They also stated on oath that the summonses were not served on them. From the records of the original suit the returned copies of summonses were not found. 16. Witness No. 1 for the opposite party, who is a partner of opposite party No. 1 M/s. Budhai Nepal Chandra Lalit Mohan Saha Firms in his evidence stated that he could not say whether the summonses were duly served or not. 17. From the records of the original suit the returned copies of summonses were not found. 16. Witness No. 1 for the opposite party, who is a partner of opposite party No. 1 M/s. Budhai Nepal Chandra Lalit Mohan Saha Firms in his evidence stated that he could not say whether the summonses were duly served or not. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated 22-3-1965 in the order sheet of the original suit it has been stated that "summons served. No steps taken by defendant." So the legal presumption was that the summonses were served. The submission of the learned counsel in normal course may be correct. But in the instant case it is found that one of the defendants was a minor and he was not shown as a minor in the plaint. The petitioners in their application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, not only stated that no summonses were served in the original suit but also deposed on oath before the court that no summonses were served on them. The witness for the opposite party-plaintiff stated that he could not say whether the summonses were duly served or not. 18. Then again it is stated that in the execution case the properties were sold. In that case the opposite parties could have brought the records of the execution proceedings to show that the notices for attachment and/or sale of the properties were served on the defendants but nothing was done. 19. Considering all the materials on record the learned Munsiff found that in the instant case summonses were not served on the defendants, that is, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and we have already found that defendant No. 3 was a minor at the time. That being so, the finding of the learned Munsiff to the effect that no summons was served on the defendant No. 4 in the original suit cannot be said to be bad in law or without evidence or perverse. This finding of fact cannot be interfered with in this revision petition in any view of the matter. 20. The learned Munsiff then considered the materials on record and came to the finding that the petitioners in the Misc. Case could know of the ex parte decree only on 3-1-1970. In evidence petitioner No. 1 in the Misc. This finding of fact cannot be interfered with in this revision petition in any view of the matter. 20. The learned Munsiff then considered the materials on record and came to the finding that the petitioners in the Misc. Case could know of the ex parte decree only on 3-1-1970. In evidence petitioner No. 1 in the Misc. Case, namely, Sudhangshu Ranjan Dev has stated that towards the end of December 1969 he came to know that ejectment notices had been served on the tenants of their paternal houses and having got that information he consulted his lawyer and obtained the certified copy of the ex parte decree on 3-1-1970 and filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code on 30-1-1970. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Munsiff has found correctly that the defendant No. 4 came to know about the ex parte decree only on 3-1-1970. 21. It may be observed that information regarding an ejectment notice with respect to the properties in question cannot be treated as knowledge of the ex parte decree. In the circumstances the finding of the learned Munsiff that the specific knowledge of the ex parte decree was derived only on 3-1-1970 and therefore the application under Order 9, Rule 13 was within the period of limitation is legally correct. 22. It is, therefore, found that the impugned order of the learned Munsiff setting aside the ex parte decree on the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, filed by Sudhangshu Ranjan Dev, defendant No. 4 is legally sustainable and there is no ground to interfere with the same. 23. In the result the impugned order of the learned Sadar Munsiff No. 1, Silchar, setting aside the ex parte decree and the execution proceedings in pursuance thereof is upheld. The Revision petition is rejected. The Rule is discharged. The stay order stands vacated. I make no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.