and consequently that suit was decreed ex parte. It is the case of the appellant that at the stage of passing the decree an error apparent the face of the record occurred because the decree was passed in favour of the only Mahender Singh and Ajaib Singh rather than in favour of the all five brothers as had been pleaded in the plaint. Thereafter, the appellants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex parte proceedings and ex parte decree. But that application was dismissed. Importantly, an appeal was filed but that appeal was also dismissed and thereafter that decree (rightly or wrongly) was allowed to become final. By the instant suit the appellant have sought to reopen that decree. The trial Court found that in equity the case of the appellants was correct and consequently decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court however held that once the decree was allowed to become final it could not be challenged by a fresh civil suit and that is how these three brothers are before this Court. Learned counsel is not a position to show how the second suit can be filed to reopen a decree where the appellants were party and where the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed and that was allowed to become final. Consequently, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court.
