- (1.) Power of Sri B. Dayal on behalf of respondents, is taken on record. Learned Counsel for appellant is permitted to carry out necessary correction in the description of the array of parties in the appeal.
(2.) Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri B. Dayal, learned Counsel for respondents. Both the learned Counsels agree and request that as no records are necessary, appeal be heard and disposed of on the following substantial questions of law: E. Whether, the Court below made an error apparent on the face of record in ignoring the provision of Order XXXII, Rule 3, C.P.C. which provides that any person can become next friend, the finding of the Court below that Chintaram cannot be the next friend of the minors suffers from manifest illegality. G. Whether, in spite of the appellant having become major during the pendency of the appeal and having categorically stated that the mother of the appellant was not their guardian and further that she has re-married and was living at Gopalpur which was admitted by their mother the Court below made an error apparent on the face of record in passing the impugned judgment.
(3.) For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as they were described in Trial Court, i.e., as plaintiff/defendant, which would also include their predecessor, unless specified otherwise.;