( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and order dated 17th June, 1999, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Surat below Applications Exh. 14, 22 and 23 in Civil Misc. Application No. 69 of 1994.

( 2 ) IT appears from the record that deceased Rameshbhai Morarbhai Patel preferred appeal before the District Court at Surat against the order of learned Civil Judge (S. D.) in Regular Civil Suit No. 427/84, which was decided on 7. 5. 1994. In the said appeal, there was a delay and therefore he preferred Civil Misc. Appln. No. 69/94 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (for short `the Act) for condonation of delay caused in filing the said appeal. During the pendency of the said application i. e. Civil Misc. Appln. No. 69/94, deceased Rameshbhai Morarbhai died on 29. 12. 96. Thereafter the present petitioners submitted application Exh. 14 on 23. 11. 98 for joining them as legal heirs in the said application. Thereafter an application Exh. 22 was submitted by them for setting aside the abetment in the appeal on 18. 3. 99 and application Exh. 23 was also submitted again for condoning the delay and setting aside the abetment.

( 3 ) ALL these three applications came to be disposed of by the District Court holding that the petitioners have failed in establishing the case and, therefore, there was no reason for condoning the delay and consequently all the three applications were dismissed by the aforesaid order dated 17th June, 1999.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said order of the lower Appellate Court, the petitioners have preferred this Civil Revision Application before this Court.

( 5 ) IT has been mainly contended here that the learned Joint District Judge has committed serious error of law in not allowing the condonation of delay application. That, in fact, it was not necessary for the petitioners to make application under Section 5 of the Act, as there was no delay and really speaking the application could be filed within span of three years in view of the provisions made in the Limitation Act. That, as a whole, the aforesaid order of the lower appellate court is illegal and, therefore, the present revision application has been filed challenging the said order of the appellate court.

( 6 ) I have heard learned advocates for the parties and have perused the papers. Now it has to be considered that the first petitioner is a widow of the deceased applicant Rameshbhai Morarbhai Patel; that the petitioner No. 2 appears to be a daughter of the deceased; that the petitioner No. 3 and 4 appear to be minor son and daughter of the deceased applicant and, therefore, we have to consider the position where there are atleast two minors representing their interest before this Court. Here I am of the view that the interest of the minor is normally required to be protected by the court. For this purpose, we can also look the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to show that the proceedings are not permitted to go ahead ex-parte against minor defendants. Therefore provisions have been made that it would be the duty of the court to appoint guardian for defending the case of the minors. That a provision has been made in Section 6 of the Limitation Act. The said provision makes it clear that where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefor in the third column of the Schedule.

( 7 ) THE learned advocate for the respondent has argued that provisions contained in Section 6 of the Limitation Act will apply only to the suit or to the execution petition and it will not apply to other proceedings. Now it is