(1.) In this revision petition, the point for determination is : Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the previous execution petition, filed by Bansi Lal on behalf of his minor sons, Randip Singh and Jaswant Singh, was an application, made in accordance with law, within the meaning of Article 182, Limitation Act? Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since the Court Nazir had been appointed guardian ad litem of the aforesaid minors during the pendency of the suit, that appointment continued during execution proceedings and, consequently, none but the Nazir could apply for execution. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied not only on the provisions of Order 32, Rule 3 (5), Civil P. C., but also on the following rulings :
(2.) The learned District Judge based his decision largely on -- 'Sarat Chandra v. Prabashi', AIR 1952 Orissa 229 (D), where a Division Bench of that High Court, following -- 'Firm Annu Mal Har Narian v. Brij Lal', AIR 1941 Lah 327 (E) and other decisions, observed as follows:
(3.) While it cannot be disputed that it was open to the Court Nazir to apply for execution on behalf of the minors as their guardian ad litem, nevertheless, I concur with the view of the Court below that the omission on his part to do so, did not debar Bansi Lal (the father of the minors) from making such an application. I agree respectfully with the principles laid down in AIR 1941 Lah 47 (F) and AIR 1952 Orissa 229 (D) (referred to above). No case is made out, therefore, for interference in revision. ORDER