ORDER : - Plaintiff opposite parties had filed a suit for a declaration, injunction and demolition against the applicant and Opposite Parties 9 to 18. The applicant Bachcha was described as a minor under the guardianship of his father Krishna Kumar in the plaint. On the refusal of Krishna Kumar, father of the applicant, Vidya Nand Vakil was appointed guardian ad litem by the Trial Court. The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiffs thereafter filed an appeal. In the decree of the Trial Court the applicant Bachcha alias Guddu continued to be described under the guardianship of his father Krishna Kumar. The memorandum of appeal filed by the plaintiff Opposite Parties arrayed the applicant as minor under the guardianship of his father Krishna Kumar. The plaintiff Opposite Parties thereafter moved an application on 19-5-71 in the Court of II Additional District Judge before whom the appeal was pending mentioning therein that Bachcha minor has been arrayed under the guardianship of his father on account of incorrect description in the certified copy of the decree. It was also mentioned in the application that Vidya Nand, the guardian ad litem has left the profession. It was, therefore, prayed that either the natural father i.e., Krishna Kumar should be appointed guardian of the applicant or some other person be appointed guardian ad litem. This application was disposed of by the order of the District Judge dated 7-8-71. The order mentions that Vidya Nand, the guardian ad litem appointed by the Trial Court has reported that he is unable to continue as the guardian on account of his ill-health and has prayed for the appointment of some other guardian of the minor. The Court, therefore, removed Vidya Nand from the guardianship of the minor and appointed Sri Uma Shanker Dwivedi as guardian ad litem of the minor. It is not disputed that thereafter Sri K.B. Sinha was appointed guardian ad litem of the minor. An application had been made on behalf of the applicant alleging that in view of the minor respondent not being represented through the guardian ad litem, the first appeal filed by the plaintiff opposite parties was incompetent against him. It was argued that the appeal has become time barred on the date when Sri K.B. Sinha was appointed guardian ad litem of the applicant. The II Additional District Judge, Allahabad rejected the applicant's application, hence this revision against the order of the II Additional District Judge.

2. The learned Counsel for the applicant has reiterated his objections in this Court and has placed his reliance on: (1) Tankeshwar Das v. Bhagaban Chandra Choudhury, AIR 1968 Assam and Naga 61; (2) Sawan Ram v. Nachittar Singh, AIR 1952 Pepsu 63; (3) Arakhito Rauto v. Patito Rauto, AIR 1953 Orissa 343. His contention is that the appointment of Vidya Nand as guardian ad litem by the Trial Court continued till he was removed by the order of the Lower Appellate Court and the memorandum of appeal filed against the minor under the guardian-ship of his natural father Krishna Kumar was in effect an appeal filed against a minor without proper guardian and was, therefore, a nullity.

Order 32, Rule 3, sub-clause (5) reads thus:

"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".

There can, therefore, be no doubt that Vidya Nand continued to be the guardian ad litem till he was removed from the guardianship of the minor. The question, however, is whether the appeal was incompetent and the Court was not competent to correct the memorandum by impleading the guardian ad litem or appointing another guardian ad litem and whether the addition of the guardian ad litem, after the period of limitation for filing the appeal had expired, will

Click Here to Read the rest of this document