( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the defendants challenging judgment and decree dated 16-7-1996 passed by Addl. District judge, Gohad, Distt. Bhind in civil appeal no. 134/92 whereby he has confirmed judgment and decree dated 13-5-1988 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Gohad in civil suit no. 120-A/86. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for cancelling the mutation in the name of defendants. ( 3 ) THIS appeal is admitted by this Court on 18-2-2002 on following substantial question of law :"have the Courts below before passing of the impugned decree not adverted to the fact that various minors, as appellants were then, were not properly represented by a guardian ad litem and in first appeal by a properly authorized next friend. " ( 4 ) THE gist of the question is whether the judgment and decree passed by two courts below is vitiated as some of the defendants were minors, who are now the appellants were not properly represented by guardian ad litem. To answer the aforesaid question it is necessary to refer to some material facts of the case. The suit was filed against one Bhopat, defendant No. 1 and nabbey, defendant No. 2. Notices of defendant no. 2 returned with an endorsement that defendant No. 2 Nabbey is dead. Thereafter, an application for bringing his heirs on record was moved and the heirs were brought on record by order dated 17-4-1984. Some of the L. R. 's were minor at that time. Mother of L. R. No. 1 Ram Ratibai alias nirpuravali filed her Vakalatnama. The proceedings dated 29-7-1983 shows that l. R. No. 1 has engaged lawyers Shri R. S. Shrivastava and Shri Satish Chandra mishra to represent her. They filed their vakalatnama on 17-8-1983 on behalf of L. R. No. 1 i. e. mother. As other heirs were minors on the said day Court passed an order appointing Shri R. S. Shrivastava as guardian of the minors. Said Vakalatnama signed by the mother was also signed by one Advocate satish Chandra Mishra. Thus, Shri R. S. Shrivastava and Shri S. C. Mishra were representing L. R. No. 1. As other heirs were minors on the said day Court passed an order appointing Shri R. S. Shrivastava as guardian of the minors. Said Vakalatnama signed by the mother was also signed by one Advocate satish Chandra Mishra. Thus, Shri R. S. Shrivastava and Shri S. C. Mishra were representing L. R. No. 1. Thereafter, Shri shrivastava appeared on behalf of defendants up to 10-12-1984 and after 10-12-1984 the proceedings shows that after 10-12-1984 either Shri R. S. Shrivastava or shri S. C, Mishra appeared for the respondents till the suit was decreed on 13-5-1988. From 10-12-1984 to 13-5-1988 Shri shrivastava appeared only on some dates for the defendants though he was appointed as a guardian and most of the dates Shri mishra represented the defendants. It was pointed out that Shri Shrivastava died somewhere in the year 1986 and thereafter no other guardian was appointed. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for appellant submits that since the guardian ad litem died in the year 1986, therefore, the entire proceedings against the minors are vitiated. ( 6 ) IT is pertinent to point out that a common written statement on behalf of defendants was filed on 30-11-1985 and no objections was raised about the proper representation of the minors. Moreover, the first appeal was filed by the mother i. e. L. R. No. 1 describing herself as natural guardian of minors. The question about the proper representation of the minors was not at all raised in the appeal. Appeal was dismissed on merits without there being any objection about the proper representation of the defendants. Now the question is whether the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed as vitiated only on account of the fact that shri R. S. Shrivastava who was appointed as guardian ad litem died on 1986 and after his death no fresh guardian is appointed by the Court. ( 7 ) IN my opinion there is an irregularity in conducting the trial. But that itself will not vitiate the entire proceedings. As already stated above a common written statement was filed on behalf of all the defendants i. e. including the minors. Shri S. C. Mishra was appearing along with Shri R. S. Shrivastava as is clear from his Vakalatnama which is a joint one. But that itself will not vitiate the entire proceedings. As already stated above a common written statement was filed on behalf of all the defendants i. e. including the minors. Shri S. C. Mishra was appearing along with Shri R. S. Shrivastava as is clear from his Vakalatnama which is a joint one. He continued to represent the minors without disclosing the fact about the death of Shri R. S. Shrivastava in the year 1986 and ultimately the decree was passed in the year 1988. Thereafter, a common appeal was preferred by the mother describing herself as natural guardian of the minors. This shows that there is no conflict of interest between the mother and the guardian and the estate of deceased Nabbey was sufficiently represented. ( 8 ) SHRI Balwant Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this is a irregularity which has rendered the entire proceedings null and void. For this purpose he has relied on the judgment of Nagpur high Court in the case of Ganesh Singh lalsingh Kshatriya v. Govind Ganesh Bakre, air 1944 Nagpur 78, Vijaykumar v. Gendalal, 1958 Jab LJ 136, Dilip Singh (Minor)v. Khilan Singh, 1979 Jab LJ 160 : ( AIR 1979 MP 117 ), Ram Chandra Arya v. Man singh, AIR 1968 SC 954 and Vijay Kumar v. Madhavrao, 1964 Jab LJ 388. ( 9 ) THE judgments of Nagpur High Court i. e. , AIR 1944 Nagpur 78 and the judgments of this Court reported in 1958 Jab LJ 136 and 1964 Jab LJ 388 are considered by this court in the case of Ram Singh Minor v. Smt ramo Bai (Minor), AIR 1968 MP 220 . Number of other judgments are also considered by this Court in the aforesaid judgment and this Court has held that an appeal presented by person who is not the guardian ad litem or which is not on the authority of such a person would be totally invalid. But, if such appeal comes to be presented and if no objection is raised and decree happens to be passed, then it is not open subsequently to the other side to contend that the presentation of the appeal was null and void. The decree should not be treated as a nullity, especially when the mistake was on the part of trial Judge himself in incorrectly describing the guardian ad litem in his judgment. The decree should not be treated as a nullity, especially when the mistake was on the part of trial Judge himself in incorrectly describing the guardian ad litem in his judgment. On the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit, no party ought to be made to suffer on account of a mistake of the Court. Under the circumstances, the invalid presentation of the appeal is a curable irregularity and the appointed guardian ad litem can be allowed to come on record. ( 10 ) THUS, this Court has held that the aforesaid irregularity does not render the entire proceedings as null and void and whether the said proceedings are entirely null arid void depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. ( 11 ) IN the present case the proceedings shows that inspite of the appointment of guardian ad litem only a single written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. The common counsel was representing all the defendants till the case was finally decided. The fact about the death of guardian ad litem was not brought to the notice of the Court. The cause title of the judgment also nowhere indicates the name of guardian ad litem. Thereafter, the mother preferred an appeal describing herself as the guardian of the deceased minors which was dismissed on merits. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the minors merely on account of death of natural guardian and by common appointment of fresh guardian ad litem. The said irregularity will not render the proceedings ab initio void. ( 12 ) IN result the judgment and decree passed by two Courts-below cannot be set aside merely on this technical ground which has not caused any prejudice to the present appellants who were represented by a lawyer throughout. ( 13 ) IN the result this appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .