SHER SINGH Vs. ISHWAR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHER Singh Plaintiff has directed this revision against the order dated May 12, 1988 of Subordinate Judge I Ind Class. Kurkshetra appointing Jhanda Ram father of Ramesh Kumar Defendant the alleged minor as guardian on the consent of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and adjourning the case for filing the amended plaint

(2.) IN brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that Sher Singh and Mohinder Singh Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit of the suit land by way of pre -emption on the strength of their being co -sharers qua the original owner. All the Defendants also filed an application for amendment of the written statement, which was dismissed by the trial Court. The revision petition filed against that order, dismissing the application, was also dismissed by this Court on May 9, 1988. Thereafter, on May 12, 1988, learned Counsel for Respondent No 3 Ramesh Kumar made a request before the trial Court that Defendant No 3 is a minor and he should be allowed to be represented through his father Jhanda Ram as he had no adverse interest against the minor upon which the above referred impugned order was passed in the presence of Shri R. G Garg, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs as he had no objection to the same. The suit was then adjourned to May 13, 1988 for filing the amended plaint.

(3.) THE law is well settled on the point that the orders recorded by the Court are the final word as to what transpired between the parties in the Court at a particular point of time and the subsequent assertion of a party that some facts were wrongly recorded in the impugned order are of no help especially when no such objection was got recorded before the trial Court at the time of passing the relevant order. In the present case also the Plaintiff or his counsel had not objected to passing of the above referred order by the trial Court on the ground that the consent of the Plaintiff had been wrongly recorded therein and actually he had not consented to treating Ramesh Kumar as minor or to the appointment of his guardian. The Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas and another's case (supra) had dealt with the similar controversy after relying upon the observations of Lord Atkinson in Somasunderan v. Subramanian, A. I. R. 1927 P. C. 136, which runs as under: -