Abani Kumar Kirty, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by Shri Krishna, one of the judgment -debtors. The appeal is directed against an order dismissing an objection u/O. XXI, R. 90 CPC. A suit for recovery of a certain sum of money was filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondents 3 to 6. At the time of the filing of the suit the appellant and respondents 4 to 6 were minors. Respondent No. 3, their father was made their guardian. During the pendency of the suit respondent No. 3 became a lunatic and the court passed an order appointing the mother, Smt. Shanti Devi, of the appellants and respondents 4 to 6 as their guardian ad litem. The suit was decreed on 18 -11 -60 for a sum of Rs. 18,865/ - and odd.
(2.) The decree was put into execution and certain property was attached and sold. Thereafter an objection u/O. XXI, R. 90 CPC was filed on 20 -11 -1963. This objection was filed by one Badri Prasad, who purported to act as the next friend of the minor judgment -debtors. It may be mentioned that in the execution application Smt. Shanti Devi was shown to be the guardian ad litem of the minor judgment -debtors. An objection was raised by the decree -holder inter alia on the ground that the objection u/O. XXI, R. 90 CPC filed by Badri Prasad was not legally maintainable, because the guardian ad litem Smt. Shanti Devi had not been removed and it was she who alone was competent to file the objection on behalf of the minor judgment -debtors. Subsequently an application was filed on 14 -4 -65 praying that Smt. Shanti Devi be removed from the guardianship and in her place Buddhu Lal be appointed as guardian ad litem. It was also prayed that the objection, which had already been filed on 20 -11 -63, be allowed to continue in the light of the allegations made in the application. This application again was opposed by the decree -holder. Subsequently another application was filed on 18 -10 -65 by the present appellant Shri Krishna alleging that he had become a major on 5 -10 -65 and praying that he may be permitted to continue the objections u/O. XXIX, R. 90 CPC filed on 20 -11 -63.
(3.) The court below relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dokku Bhushayya v/s. Katragadda Ramakrishanayya ( : AIR 1962 SC 1886) held that no person other than the guardian ad litem appointed by the court, who had not been removed, was competent to file any objection on behalf of minor judgment -debtors. In regard to the removal of the guardian ad litem the court below observed that it had not been shown that the mother no longer had capacity or ability to protect the minors or that for some other reason another guardian was required to be appointed. In the result, it was held that the original objection u/O. XXI, R. 90 CPC was not legally maintainable, which accordingly was dismissed.;