IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS IHE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 1998 BE! ORE THE HOICBLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAR?YAN NO.815 1998 Smt,Mallamma wife of Prakash Patil, Age : 19 yrs. r/o. BoninanaJogi village Tq : Sindqi, Dist : BiJapur, petitioner (By Sri.M.B,Naragund — Adv,) — vs — Sri. Gurappa s/o. Hanuwantharaya Biradar, Age : Major r/o. Boramanajogi Village Tq : Sindoi, Dist : BiJapur. Respondent (By Sr!.Jayakurnar S.Patil Adv,) C,R.P, filed u/s,lls of CPC ag.ainst the order dated 20—2—1998 passed in FDP No.135/61 on the file of the qivil Judge (Jr. Dn,) Sindgi, allowing 1,A.9 and 10 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and u/o,22 R-4 of CPC. This C,R.P. coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following : 2., 3. Since the petitioner is not under the care and protection Guring the pendency of the FDP, the trial Court chose to appoint a lawyer against whom the petitioner has made some allegation stating the..t he has not protected the interest by submittng no objection to allow 1 A.IX and X. It is prima facje difficult/to accept this contention against the court guardian. Moreover 1 when the other defendants are representing the FDP the question of abatement does not arise specially when a minor was represented by a court guaroian. No illegality as such is noticed nor any prejudice is caused to the minor during the pendency of the FDP 1 Therefore, in my opinion, no error of law is committed by the court below Revision Sd/ JUDGE rs/