SRJ caf-4466-09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4466 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4467 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.27099 OF 2009 Master Akshay V. Kenjale & Anr., .. Appellants Vs. Mr. Vikramaditya J. Kenjale .. Respondent. Mr.P.B.Shah for Appellants. Ms.Rebello Gonsalves for Respondent. CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010. P.C. : 1] This application is for condonation of delay. There is delay of 35 days. The Appellant No.1 is minor. A sale transaction was challenged in the suit. The guardian ad-litem was appointed for the Appellant during the proceedings of the suit. 2] The contentions of the counsel for the Respondent is that the Appeal cannot be filed by anyone else than the guardian ad-litem. The learned counsel invited my attention to provision of order XXXII Rule 3 (5) of the C.P.C. It appears that guardian ad-litem appointed under sub-rule (1) of Order XXXII Rule (3), has authority to act on his SRJ caf-4466-09.sxw 2 behalf throughout the proceedings including in appellate or the revisional Court. There cannot be any two opinion that unless such appointment is terminated by retirement, removal or death etc., the guardian ad-litem is authorized to perform as guardian all along the proceedings. The guardian ad-litem appointed in the present case was Nazir of the Court. The impugned judgment shows that the Nazir of the Court filed Written Statement. It appears that the Advocate for the minor appellant(defendant No.3) was appointed separately. The suit ultimately came to be decreed against the original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 as well as minor  original Defendant No.3. 3] It appears prima facie that the Nazir of the Court did not take pains to lead evidence on behalf of the Appellant i.e. minor Defendant No.3. Obviously, it is necessary to examine whether the minor was properly represented. The Appellant alleged that the Advocate applied for copies of judgment and decree after the time for filing of the Appeal was over. It is further submitted that there was no fault of the Appellant. The delay in filing of the Appeal does not appear to be out come of any malafides or purposeful act or lethargic attitude. The matter relates to immovable property. The right of the parties are SRJ caf-4466-09.sxw 3 required to be examined. Considering the reasons stated in the application, the delay will have to condoned. The objection as regards authority of the Appellant No.2 to file Appeal for and on behalf of the minor Appellant/Applicant is kept open. Civil Application allowed. 4] Office to place the matter for admission. 5] Interim relief, if any, shall be continued. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J)