LAXMAN KARAN AND ANR. Vs. BANSIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has come up before me after almost three years: I heard it in part on the 19 -3 -57. The delay has been occasioned because of a mistake committed by learned Counsel for the Appellants in not having a guardian on the record for the Respondent who was shown as a minor in the array of parties in the Memorandum of Appeal.

(2.) THE appeal was filed on 28 -1 -54, by Lakshman Karan and Govind Karan against Bansidhar, minor son of Lakshmi Prasad. Bansidhar was shown as minor but there was no guardian to act for Bansidhar minor. The office report on the Memorandum of Appeal did not show that there was any defect in the array of parties, inasmuch as no guardian had been nominated or appointed to act on behalf of the minor Respondent Bansidhar. On 14 -3 -57 counsel for the Appellants made an application which he purported to make under the provisions of Section 151, Code of Criminal Procedure. This application was put up before the Court on 18 -3 -57. The prayer in this application was slightly curiously worded for the prayer was in these words:

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the Applicants filed another application, which was dated 20 -3 -57 but which actually was put in Court on 21 -3 -57, Under Section 151 and Order XXXII, Rule 3, 4 and II of the Code. By this application it was prayed that the guardianship of Achey Lal be terminated because Achey Lal had died some three years back and some Advocate of this Court be appointed guardian of Bansidhar Respondent. It was also prayed that in case the Court found that the Respondent had become major then the appeal be proceeded with by declaring Respondent Bansidhar major. In the affidavit accompanying this application which was sworn by Lakshmi Sahai it was stated in paragraph 6 that the Respondent was about 16 years' old at the time when the appeal against him had been filed.