C.R. No.2661 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2661 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.08.2009 Surat Singh .....Petitioner Versus Smt. Champa Devi and others ....Respondents Present: Ms. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The revision is against the order dismissing an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in preferring an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Narnaul against the decree of the Sub Judge Ist Class, Mahendergarh rendered on 16.12.1986. In fact, the appeal had been instituted nearly 13 years after the disposal of the trial Court. The justification for the delay was that the father, who had represented the petitioner as a Guardian when the latter was a minor had not taken adequate care to prosecute the case in appeal and since he was disabled from preferring an appeal in his own right by virtue of the minority at that time, he was preferring an appeal after he came of age and realized the gross lapse on the part of the father. 2. It must be noticed that it was not merely a case of negligence of the father that the son was complaining of, while he C.R. No.2661 of 2003 (O&M) -2- sought to prefer an appeal. After the suit had been disposed of at the trial Court, the mother had a fling at litigation attempting to impugn the judgment, by filing a suit to set aside the decree, acting again as a Guardian for the erstwhile minor. The suit had been originally decreed but the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed restoring the validity of the decree that was originally obtained in C.S. No.358 of 1983. The appeal against the decree in C.S. No.358 of 1983 itself had been attempted only during the pendency of the appeal that had been filed by the defendant in the suit filed by the mother acting as a Guardian for the son. There had been proper representations at all times and law enables the Guardian always to act on behalf of the minor. If that representation was bad, the proper remedy would only be to challenge the decree as not binding which was admittedly done by the suit instituted by the mother as a Guardian for the son. What was lost by a fresh suit attempted through the mother as guardian cannot again be revived by an appeal against the original decree obtained against him when he was represented by the father. The appeal was clearly not a bona fide exercise and the dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was perfectly justified. 3. There is no error of jurisdiction or illegality in the order of the lower Appellate Court to survive for consideration in civil revision. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 06, 2009 Pankaj*