IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.326 of 2008 SMT.SHARDA DEVI & ORS Versus JAI PRAKASH SINGH & ORS ----------- 2 3.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 27.11.2007 whereby and whereunder the Court below has allowed amendment in the plaint. Counsel for the petitioners with reference to a judgment of this Court in the case of Haku Murmur Vs. Sufal Manjhi @ Sufal Murmur & Ors. reported in 2004 (3) PLJR 363 submits that by the proposed amendment a decree of the year 1963 passed in Title Suit No. 161/62 is sought to be questioned which is patently barred by limitation. He therefore relies in the aforementioned judgment wherein it has been held that no such amendment should be allowed for a relief which is barred by limitation. In the opinion of this Court, the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any logic because the decree of the Court below sought to be made subject matter of this present suit by seeking amendment in the relief is on record and that by itself goes to show that such decree was passed ex-parte. Moreover the plea of the petitioners that the opposite party Jai Prakash Singh was duly represented in the said suit is also an error of 2 record. From the perusal of the decree, it would be clear that even if a legal guardian was appointed who is said to have filed a written statement on behalf of the minor, the said legal guardian did not represent the minor Jai Prakash Singh at that point of time and therefore his suit came to be allowed ex-party against all the defendants including Jai Prakash Singh who was a minor. It is well settled that such a decree will not bind the minor if he was not ultimately represented at all stage in the suit. In that view of the matter, if the minor after becoming major and in course of contesting the present suit had sought a relief of setting aside that ex-parte decree, the Court below cannot be said to have committed any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in allowing such amendment. Accordingly, this application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)