( 1 ) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother V. D. Bhargava, and as I generally agree with him. I need not recite the facts again or deal with the cases referred to by him at length.

( 2 ) A minor cannot sue by himself nor can he be sued without being represented by someone else. This someone else is called a "next friend" when the minor is the plaintiff in an action, and is called a "guardian ad litem" when the minor is a defendant. The nomenclature does not matter, and the real fact is that the next friend or the guardian ad litem represents the Interest of the minor.

( 3 ) ONCE a person has been named either the next friend or the guardian of the minor, reason requires that he should continue to represent the minor through all the off-shoots of the proceedings, for it would be anomalous if without the removal of the representative already named someone else were to commence representing the minor. If there are different representatives at different stages without the former representatives being removed by order of the Court, it would result in confusion as to which guardian will execute the decree or order when one is made in the proceedings, and against whom or be whom an appeal from the decision of the trial Court will be filed and who will file the restoration application or an application for setting aside a decree. From the very nature of things it is necessary that one person at a time should represent the minor. If he is found negligent or unsuitable, the Court can remove him and appoint another. But more than one person cannot be allowed to be the representative of the minor at one and the same time-

( 4 ) AN appeal is a continuation of a suit and the lis includes the various off-shoots of at proceeding. It must therefore be that whoever be the representative of the minor in the trial Court should also ordinarily be his representative in the appellate Court or in other higher Courts where the same lis continues.

( 5 ) THIS view finds support from a number of cases. In -- jwala Dei v. Pirbhu, 14 All 35 (A), it was held that where a guardian ad litem has been once appointed, his appointment enures for the whole of the lis in the course of which it has been made, unless and until it is revoked toy the court. The same view was taken in -- sambhoo v. Kanhaya, AIR 1922 All 332 (2) (B) and --Venkata chandrasekhara Raja v. Alakarajamba Maharani, 22 Mad 187 (C ). A contrary view having been expressed in --salaluddin Khajeh v. Afzal Begum, AIR 1925 Cal 23 (D), that the guardian ad litem appointed in a suit does not continue as such without a fresh appointments during the execution proceeding, the Legislature Intervened and amended Order 32, Rule 3, Civil P. C. , by inserting Sub-rule (5) as follows :

"a person appointed under Sub-rule (1) to be guardian for the suit for a minor shall, unless his appointment is terminated by retirement, removal or death continue as such throughout all proceedings arising out of the suit including proceedings in any appellate or revisional court and any proceedings in the execution of a decree. " Thus it is clear that the Legislature overruled the calcutta view and confirmed the view of the other High Courts.

( 6 ) IT is clear therefore that under this Rule the guardian of the minor who had been appointed in the suit while it was pending in the trial Court must continue even in appellate proceedings unless his appointment is terminated by retirement, removal or death. But it is urged that this rule applies only when the minor who was a defendant in the suit and for whom a guardian was appointed is a respondent in an appeal arising out of the same suit and does not apply when the minor is the appellant. It appears to me that there is no warrant for any such distinction. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order 32 is quite clear that the guardian of the minor appointed for the suit shall continue as such throughout all proceedings arising out of the su