Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- This appeal by special leave challenges the order passed in review by the learned single Judge, whereby he reviewed his earlier order passed in revision and held that a personal decree should be passed, overruling the contention regarding limitation.

2. Shri Dikshit, appearing for the appellant, has strenuously pressed three points before us. He has contended that the whole decree was a nullity, because the minor against whom the suit was filed had not been represented properly or in accordance with law. There being no representation of the minor, the decree as against him, was void. Later in the course of the arguments, he brought it to our notice that another suit had been filed raising this ground, and prayed that we should not pronounce on the merits of this contention. We would rather leave it to the court before which any suit may be pending to decide it on its merits. Anyway, that point is not pressed for the present purpose.

3. Shri Dikshit, secondly, contended that the right to a personal decree had been specifically abandoned in the plaint by the respondent and that, therefore, the order passed in review, granting a personal decree was contrary to