JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. 1. Ram Charittar Rai, the uncle, so he calls himself, of a minor Sukhdeo Rai, who was plaintiff in the Court of first instance, asked for permission to appeal in this Court on behalf of the minor. In the court of first instance the minor was represented by a guardian ad litem. That guardian ad litem was his natural guardian, namely, his father, Sukh Rai. Presumably that guardian was appointed according to law upon the basis of an affidavit, which satisfied the court that he had no interest in the matter in question in the suit adverse to that of the minor, and that he was a fit person so to be appointed. This is required by section 456/of the Code of Civil Procedure, and I have no reason to suppose that the court of first instance did not do its duty, or, before appointing Sukh Rai, did not satisfy itself upon both these matters. It appears from the judgment of the lower appellate court that the matters in dispute between the parties were referred to arbitration, and that a decree was given in accordance with the decision of the arbitrators. Here, too, the guardian ad litem could not have moved without the leave of the court first asked and obtained. This is required by section 462, and I am bound to presume that Sukh Rai satisfied the Court that the reference to compromise was a fitting turn for the suit to take and that he entered into the agreement on behalf of the minor with the leave of the Court. I cannot by the papers before me, say how that compromise or the decree obtained thereunder affected the interests of the minor, The same Charittar Rai, who is asking for leave to appeal evidently thought that the interest of the minor were prejudiced. He went to the District Judge of Azamgarh and filed an appeal in the name of Sukhdeo Rai. The District Judge very properly pointed out that an appeal thus filed was entirely irregular. He followed a ruling of this Court in Bawan Das v. Bishnath, [1899] 19 A.W.N., 203 and pointed out that the proper remedy for a person desiring to appeal under similar circumstances was held to be an application to the appellate Court for dismissal of the guardian. He followed a ruling of this Court in Bawan Das v. Bishnath, [1899] 19 A.W.N., 203 and pointed out that the proper remedy for a person desiring to appeal under similar circumstances was held to be an application to the appellate Court for dismissal of the guardian. It is true that was a case in which the minor filled the position of defendant, whereas in the present case he is plaintiff. But the principle remains, The court of first instance has presumably appointed a fit person to represent the interests of the minor. 2. It has been held in Jwala Dei v. Pribhu, [1891] I.L.R., 14 All., 35 that a person appointed a guardian of a minor for the purposes of a lis continues guardian so long as that lis continues whether in the Court of first instance or in the Court of appeal, unless and until the appointment, is revoked by the Court. From the appeal thus dismissed, Ram Charittar Rai asks to appeal on behalf of the minor in this Court, In the application he represents that Sukh Rai is in the habit of smoking ganja and is utterly incompetent to conduct the minor's case or to look after his interest in any other way. In the course of a very long argument the learned Vakil strenuously urged that a guardian ad litem, who does not file an appeal when the law allow an appeal, is a person who does not do his duty. Now a guardian may quite as often do his duty by a minor by not filing an appeal as by filing an appeal. 3. The position at present is very much the position as described in Venkata Chandrasekhara Ruzu v. Alkatajamba Maharani, [1898] I.L.R., 22 Mad., 187. The learned Judges were asked, as I have been asked, to adjourn this case in order to allow an application to be made To discharge the old guardian and appoint Ram Charittar Rai in his stead. 3. The position at present is very much the position as described in Venkata Chandrasekhara Ruzu v. Alkatajamba Maharani, [1898] I.L.R., 22 Mad., 187. The learned Judges were asked, as I have been asked, to adjourn this case in order to allow an application to be made To discharge the old guardian and appoint Ram Charittar Rai in his stead. The learned Vakil has very properly seen that this application, as it stands, is worth nothing, and it is not an application until it is supported by an affidavit, and he wishes me to grant him an adjournment to allow him time to furnish that affidavit, The inference I draw is the inference drawn in that case that the guardian ad litem does not think it advisable in the interest of the minor to carry on the litigation any further, when the natural father and one considered a fit person by the court below declines to appeal. I am not prepared, except on the very strongest grounds, to allow another person whatever his relationship may be to intermeddle. The application is dismissed.