Judgment 1. This review application has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment dated 18.8.98 passed by this court in second Appeal No. 85/80R. The petitioner was respondent no.2 in the aforesaid second appeal and he was shown as minor son of late Paras Bihari Roy represented through his mother and natural guardian, Chanubala Debya, respondent no.1 in the said appeal. 2. It appears that Title suit no. 75/77 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 along with the petitioner when he was minor through his mother. The suit was filed for a decree of declaration that the sale deed dated 15.8.77 executed in favour of the defendants-opp. parties by the plaintiff was invalid. The suit was dismissed by the trial court holding that the said deed executed in favour of opposite party was legal and valid. The plaintiff- respondent no.1 along with the petitioner, then filed title appeal no. 115/78 which was eventually allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 24.7.78. Aggrieved by the said decree the defendants opp. parties preferred second appeal being Second Appeal No. 85/80. In the said memo of appeal the petitioner was shown as a minor represented through his mother, respondent no.1. The second appeal was ultimately allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court was set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was confirmed and thus the suit was ultimately dismissed. 3. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. counsel appearing on . behalf of the petitioner assailed the judgment passed in second appeal as being a nullity having been passed against a dead person and also against the minor petitioner who was not sufficiently represented. Learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the second appeal respondent no.3 died and a petition for substitution was filed which was rejected on 1.2.88 and by order dated 8.8.98 this court kept the competency matter for consideration at the time of hearing of the appeal. Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal respondent no.1 also died and this fact was not brought to the notice of the court nor any substitution petition was filed by the appellants as a result thereof the appeal was taken up against a dead person and the impugned judgment was passed. Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal respondent no.1 also died and this fact was not brought to the notice of the court nor any substitution petition was filed by the appellants as a result thereof the appeal was taken up against a dead person and the impugned judgment was passed. Learned counsel put much stress on the fact that on the death of respondent no.1 the power executed by respondent no.1, his mother for herself and on behalf of the present petitioner in favour of her counsel to represent both, ceased and thus the petitioner remained unrepresented. 4. For better appreciation of the submission made by Mr. Debi Prasad it would be useful to quote para 11 of the review petition which is the sheet-anchor of the prayer made for review of the judgment. "It is humbly stated that upon death of respondent no. 1 and on attaining the majority the power executed by Chanubala Debya for herself and on behalf of the present petitioner in favour of her counsel to represent, both ceased and thus the petitioner remained unrepresented." 5. In my opinion, the ground taken by the petitioner is false and has no leg to stand. From perusal of the records it transpires that after the second appeal was admitted, notices were issued to all the respondents. Respondent no.1, the mother of the petitioner appeared and filed vakalatnama on 9.4.81 only on her own behalf and not as a guardian of respondent no.2, the petitioner. The office, therefore, put a note that inspite of service of notice on respondent no.1, the mother and guardian of the petitioner did not appear on behalf of her minor son. Consequently, by order dated 9.7.82 the Registrar was appointed guardian on behalf of the petitioner. The appellant, thereafter, deposited necessary O.R. guardian cost for minor respondent no.2 and duly stamped vakalatnama. The Registrar of this court then appointed a lawyer for and on behalf of respondent no.2 and the concerned advocate filed vakalatnama on 5.3.84. 6. The submission of Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. counsel has, therefore, no force at all and cannot be accepted. Further, it appears from the judgment that the counsel appearing for the respondents fully participated in the hearing and this court, after considering the submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, has passed the judgment. 7. 6. The submission of Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. counsel has, therefore, no force at all and cannot be accepted. Further, it appears from the judgment that the counsel appearing for the respondents fully participated in the hearing and this court, after considering the submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, has passed the judgment. 7. At this stage it would be worth to look into the provisions of Order 32 rule 3 CPC which lays down provision for appointment of guardian for minor defendant by the court. Sub-rule (1) provides that where the defendant is a minor, the court, on being satisfied of the fact of his minority, shall appoint a proper person to be the guardian for the suit for such minor. Sub-rule (5) provides that any person appointed under sub-rule (1) to be guardian for the suit for a minor shall, unless his appointment is terminated by retirement, removal of deaths continue as such throughout all proceedings arising out of the suit including the proceedings in any appellate or revisional court and any proceeding in execution of decree. 8. Rule 3A of Order 32 further provides that no decree passed against a minor shall be set aside merely on the ground that the next friend or guardian of the suit of the minor had an interest in the subject matter of the suit adverse to that of the minor but the fact that by reason of such adverse interest of the next friend or guardian of the suit prejudice has been caused to the interest of the minor shall be a ground for setting aside the decree. 9. Applying the principles of rule 3A it appears to me that since the appeal was fully contested by the counsel appearing for the respondents and, thereafter the judgment was passed, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner even assuming that he was represented through his mother, respondent no.1. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, I do not find any reason to review the judgment passed by this court in second appeal. 11. In the result, there is no merit in this civil review petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.