Honble YADAV, J. – Instant revision has been filed against the order impugned dated 18.9.95 passed in Civil Suit No. 111/93 whereby the application of defendant-revisionist filed under o.32 r.12 read with Sec.151 C.P.C. was rejected on the basis of reply filed by the counsel of next friend Heeralal.

(2). Main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist before me is that minor Tej Singh attained majority in the year 1985, therefore, after attaining majority his next friend Heeralal has become functus officio and counsel engaged by him cannot be permitted to make an application on behalf of Tej Singh alleging therein that the minor after attaining majority intends to continue the suit. According to Shri Dave, learned counsel for the revisionist the counsel engaged in the present case by Shri Heeralal next friend of Tej Singh who admittedly attained majority during the pendency of the suit cannot ipso facto become the counsel of Tej Singh.

(3). It is also brought to my notice that when ten years after attaining majority nothing was done by Tej Singh then in order to avoid legal complica- tions the defendant himself moved an application to make the record straight after ascertaining the wishes and intendment of Tej Singh as to whether he elects to proceed with the suit or intends to abandon it after attaining majority. It is urged by Shri Dave that his aforesaid application was rejected without giving an opportunity of hearing to defendant revisionist that too on the basis of reply filed by the next friend Heeralal through his counsel.

(4). Learned counsel for the revisionist vehementaly argued before me that although no opportunity of hearning was afforded to the defendant revisionist yet incorrectly it is written in the impugned order that the said order was passed after hearing both the parties.

(5). Learned counsel for the revisionist invited my attention towards the fact that in the beginning of the order impugned these words have been written:"VAKIL PRATIVADI UPASTHITH NAHIN" yet before entering into the merit of the application it is observed that the learned trial court had heard both the parties.

(6). The second objection to the impugned order is that the Vakalatnama of Shri Fateh Singh as well as Shri Mahendra Kumar Mehta was filed by the next friend Heeralal and the minor after attaining majority has not filed any Vakalatnama of the aforesaid two counsel upto the date of order yet in the impugned order it is mentioned that the minor after attaining majority has filed Vakalatnama in the suit. The learned counsel for defendant revisionist has produced a certified copy of Vakalatnama before the court on top of which two dates are mentioned i.e. 19.10.1995 and 15.11.1995 . According to Shri Dave the said Vakalatnama was not on record on the date of impugned order i.e. 18.9.95 . If said Vakalatnama would have been on record on the date of order it aught to have been entered in the process register.

(7). There is no quarrel about proposition of law urged before me by the learned counsel for the revisionist to the effect that whenever and wherever a minor attained majority his next friend become functus officio and has no authority whatsoever to continue the suit within the meaning of o.32 r.12 CPC.

(8). In support of his aforesaid contention learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance before me on a decision rendered by Division Bench in the case of Ratan Chand Dhulaji & Anr. vs. Jasraj Kasturchand (1), as well as a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court in the case of Ishar Singh vs. Bakshish Singh & Ors. (2).

(9). I respectfully concur with the ratio decidendi laid down in case of Ratan Chand Dhulaji(supra) rendered by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court as well as decision rendered by learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court in case of Ishar Singh (supra).

(10). In view of the aforesaid two decisions in abundant caution it is held that where during the pendency of a s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document