RAJ BEHARI LAL Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(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-