1. It is contended that the District Judge's decision should be set aside in revision, because he has dealt with this case without reference to the position of petitioners as minors litigating by their guardian.
2. The question is whether the point was entitled to consideration by the Lower Courts in dealing with the question before them, one raised under Order IX, Rule 9(1) or whether they were limited, to enquiry whether 'sufficient cause' for the absence of the minors' guardian was established. It is conceded that minority is not in itself covered by the description 'sufficient cause.
3. Reliance has been placed for petitioners on Kesho Pershad v. Hirday Narain (1880) 6 Cal. L.R. 69 a case directly in point. Other decisions against the restriction of the justification for restoration of a case to 'sufficient cause' are Somavya v. Subbamma I.L.R. (1908) M. 599 Gopal Row v. Maria Susaya Pillai I.L.R. (1906) M. 274. The former of these cases refers explicitly to the case of a minor, whose suit has been dismissed through a guardian's laches. I must follow them in preference to Venkatrama Aiyar v. Nataraja Aiyar (1912) 24 M.L.J. 239 and the cases cited therein on the other side.
4. I therefore set aside the decision of the Lower Court and direct it to restore the appeal and to hear it again in the light of the foregoing and with reference to the question whether the minor's guardian has been guilty of gross neglect of their interests. The point, on which petitioners now succeed, was not taken in the Lower Courts. There will therefore be no order as to costs to date.