R.S.A No. 931 of 2007 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.2603-C of 2007 and R.S.A No. 931 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : November 25 , 2008 Major Jeet Singh and another, ...... Appellants. through Mr.B.S.Bedi, Advocate v. Lakha Singh and others, ...... Respondents through Mr.Mohinderjit Singh, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) C.M.No.2603-C of 2007 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 407 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M stands disposed of. R.S.A No.931 of 2007 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of respondents No.1 to 3 for specific performance of the contract of sale executed by the father of the appellants. The only argument raised by counsel for the appellants is that at the time of the trial of the suit, the appellants were minor and that the Court guardian Shri Lalit Chopra, Advocate at the relevant time was R.S.A No. 931 of 2007 (O&M) ::2:: working as a junior to counsel for the respondents and that this act itself has vitiated the trial. Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has drawn my attention to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court where the learned Court has considered the specific issue of any prejudice having been caused to the appellants by the appointment of Shri Lalit Chopra, Advocate as Court guardian. The learned lower appellate Court further found that no prejudice was caused to the appellants as their father was defending the suit and that he had taken all the pleas and that no objection was raised at the relevant time for the appointment of Shri Lalit Chopra, Advocate as Court guardian. The said Court guardian had acted in the best interest of the appellants. It has further been found that in fact the father of the appellants had also engaged a counsel for the appellants and had watched their interest. In this view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court holding the trial to be vitiated merely because Shri Lalit Chopra, Advocate was appointed as Court guardian for the appellants. No other point has been raised by counsel for the appellants. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 25 , 2008. JUDGE `kk'