SHRIMATI HAR KAUR Vs. PARMAL AND RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this appeal is, whether an erstwhile minor who has attained majority before the filing of the appeal is incompetent to file an appeal unless the guardian appointed during the period when he was a minor is discharged. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on Order 32, Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure and argues that a person who has once been appointed as guardian for the minor shall continue to represent the minor until his appointment is terminated by retirement, removal or death. The answer to his argument is found in Order 32, Rule 3(5) itself. The provision only says that he shall continue as guardian of the minor unless his appointment is terminated by retirement, removal or death. Once his ward attains majority, he ceases to be a minor and, therefore, there is no question of his erstwhile guardian continuing as guardian of a minor. The learned counsel relied on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Mishrilal v. Pukhraj and others, 1975 AIR(Raj) 213 That was a case in which a person, other than the guardian of the minor repressing the minor, filed an appeal to the first appellate Court. That appeal was dismissed and thereafter the minor who in the meanwhile had attained majority sought to file a second appeal to the High Court. It was held that as the appeal to the lower appellate Court itself was incompetent, the second appeal was also incompetent. The case has, therefore, no application. We do not have the slightest doubt that in the present case the appeal by the erstwhile minor was competent and that Order 32, Rule 3(5) was no bar to the filing of the appeal by the erstwhile minor. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.

(2.) The parties will appear before the First Appellate Court on 13th September, 1976. The lower Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.