JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral) One Om Prakash, instituted a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 67-S/1 of 95/93, seeking therein rendition, of, a declaratory decree besides rendition of a decree, for, rendition of accounts. The learned trial Court, on, the relevant issue, appertaining to the parties at contest, constituting a joint hindu family AND the suit property besides’ the business belonging to the joint hindu family, hence returned dis-affirmative findings thereon. The learned trial Judge also on the issue, relating, to the valid execution, of, testamentary disposition, of, one Shakuntka Devi, disposition whereof stood propounded by defendant No.1, returned affirmative findings thereon. The plaintiff, one Om Prakash, being aggrieved, by the adversial findings returned vis-à-vis him, upon issues No. 1, 9 and 10, hence, instituted RFA No. 365 of 2000 before this Court, wherein the applicants’ herein also are arrayed as party(s). Consequently, with the predecessors-in-interests of applicants’ herein, standing arrayed as party(s) in Civil Suit No. 67-S/1 of 95/93 besides with the applicants’ herein, being also arrayed as parties in RFA No. 365 of 2000, (i) thereupon when the aforesaid, would during, the course of hearing of RFA No. 365 of 2000, hence hold the apposite opportunity(s) to contest the submissions made by the counsel representing Sh. Om Prakash, whereby he makes an effort for reversing the findings, returned by the learned trial Court, upon issues No. 1, 9 and 10, (ii) thereupon, when this Court declines relief, on, the instant application vis-à-vis the applicants’, no, apparent prejudice would hence be entailed upon them. 2. Be that as it may, in the aforesaid backdrop, when apparently, no prejudice would be encumbered, upon, the applicants’ in CMP(M) No. 702 of 2013, (i) thereupon with the grounds meted in the application, cast under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, (ii) grounds whereof stand anviled, upon, the applicants’ interest in litigation being not diligently protected by their court guardian, rather cannot at this stage, be held construable to be a tangible ground(s), apparently when no concrete evidence exists, for, , sustaining them. Moreso, given all the aforestated reasons, besides now at, also given theirs being arrayed as party(s) in RFA No. 365 of 2000, hence with theirs holding an opportunity, to, validate the affirmative findings returned by the learned trial Judge, upon the apposite issues No. 1, 9 and 10 vis-à-vis their respective predecessors-in-interests, also constrains this Court, to, dismiss the application. 3. In sequel, there is no merit in the instant application and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that, upon, hearing, of, RFA No. 365 of 2000, the applicants’ in the instant application shall be given the fullest opportunity to protect their interests in litigation.