JUDGMENT A.K. Kirty, J. - This appeal has been filed by Shri Krishna, one of the judgment debtors. The appeal is directed against an order dismissing an objection under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. 2. A suit for recovery of a certain sum of money was filed by respondent No. I 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 16-11-1960 for a sum of Rs. 18,865/- and odd. 3. The decree was put into execution and certain property was attached and sold. Thereafter an objection under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. way 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 under Order XXI Rule 90. C.P.C. 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 14-4-1965 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 20-11-1963, 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 18-10-1965 by the present appellant Shri Krishna alleging that he had become a major on 5-10-1965 and praying that he may be permitted to continue the objections under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. filed on 20-11-1963. 4. This application again was opposed by the decree-holder. Subsequently another application was filed on 18-10-1965 by the present appellant Shri Krishna alleging that he had become a major on 5-10-1965 and praying that he may be permitted to continue the objections under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. filed on 20-11-1963. 4. The court below relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dokku Bhushayya v. Katragadda Ramakrishnayya, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 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 under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. was not legally maintainable, which accordingly was dismissed. 5. On behalf of the auction purchaser, respondent No. 2, an objection in the nature of preliminary objection was raised. It was urged that after the dismissal of the objection under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. the sale was confirmed and possession of the property sold was also delivered. Relying on the, decision of the Supreme Court in Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh, A.I.R. 1938 Allahabad 601," it was contended that it was no longer possible for the court to set aside the sale after its confirmation and that therefore the court was not in a position to give effective relief to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to distinguish the aforesaid case on the ground that the observations made by the Supreme Court were not applicable to cases which fell under Rules 89 to 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. To our mind, it is not necessary to go into this question, because we are not satisfied in regard to the merits of the appeal. 6. Independently of the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the court below, it seems to us that Order XXXII, Rule 3 (5) , C.P.C. is quite clear on the point. To our mind, it is not necessary to go into this question, because we are not satisfied in regard to the merits of the appeal. 6. Independently of the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the court below, it seems to us that Order XXXII, Rule 3 (5) , C.P.C. is quite clear on the point. The said sub-rule reads as follows :- "A person appointed under sub-rule (1) to be guardian for the suit for a minor shall, unless his appointment is terminated by retirement, removal or death, continue as such throughout all proceedings arising out of the suit including proceedings in any Appellate or Revisional court and in proceedings in the execution of a decree." It is, therefore, clear that so long as Smt. Shanti Devi continued to be the guardian ad litem no other person could file any objection under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. on behalf of minor judgment-debtors. The application which was filed on 20-11-1963 therefore must be held to be incompetent. In this connection we may also refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Raj v. Khem Chand, A.I.R. 1938 Allahabad 601, in which it was held : "Where a guardian ad litem of the minors has been appointed by the Court. any objection on their behalf should be filed through that guardian. An objection on behalf of minors filed through any person other than such guardian is not maintainable." 7. It was however urged on behalf of the appellant that he became a major and thereafter was entitled to file objection in his personal capacity independently of any guardian ad litem. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the appellant had become major on 5-10-1965 and that the application which was filed by him on 18-10-1965 must be considered to be an application filed by him for the first time and that in that event the application would be clearly barred by Limitation. On behalf of the appellant Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was sought to be pressed into service. Sec. 6 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as its plain language would show, can be availed of by a person for the purpose of instituting a suit or making an application for the execution of it decree. On behalf of the appellant Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was sought to be pressed into service. Sec. 6 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as its plain language would show, can be availed of by a person for the purpose of instituting a suit or making an application for the execution of it decree. The filing of an objection under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. is not one of the matters covered by Section 6 aforesaid. Therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the application which was filed on 18-10-1965 was saved by Section 6 of the Limitation Act cannot be accepted. The language of Section 6 of the Limitation Act is sufficiently plain and hardly any authority is needed. Even then, we may refer to the decision of the Madras High Court in Govinda Krishna Aiyar v. Minor Shankaralinga Naicker through Subbra Naicker, A.I.R. 1943 Madras 55, in which a Division Bench of that Court held that the benefit of Section 6 is available to a minor only in respect of a suit or an application for execution of a decree. That Section does not apply to an application to set aside a sale or to other proceedings in execution of a decree. Thus, even if the application dated 18-10-1965 were to be treated as an application filed by the appellant in his own right, that application clearly was barred by Limitation. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, we direct the parties to bear their own costs of the appeal in this Court.