The question involved in this case is whether a minor incorrectly described as a major and impleaded as a defendant to a suit is a party from the date of the plaint or shall be considered to be a party from the date when the arrangement for his proper representation as a minor is made by the plaintiff. This question arose in the present case when an application under Order XXXII, C. P.
C. Was submitted for appointment of guardian-at- item of the minor. The learned trial Court allowed this petition and permitted the plaintiff to file an amended plaint after repelling the argument of limitation on the strength of Younus Bhuiyan (minor and another v. Aban Chandra Datta and others (PLD 1963 Dacca. 323). It was held in that case that it is difficult to hold that limitation in such a case should not be counted from the date of plaint simply because the defendant was not properly described or not represented by a guardian. Reliance was placed for this proposition on Khem Kdran and another v. Har Dayal (I L R 4 All. 37), Prasanua Ram Ghosh and another v. Anfar A.I and others (38 C W N 900). There are a number of other authorities i.e. Durga v.
Gur Narain (AIR 1924 Lah. 157), Harlal Singh v. Rudra Singh (A L R, 1927 All. 787), Talib A.I v. Piarelal (AIR 1930 All. 644) and Abdul Aziz v. Sheikh Amir (AIR, 1941 Nag. 130).
2. Similarly it is authoritatively laid down that where a major by bona fide mistake is impleaded as a minor plaintiff, he foes not become a new patty within the meaning of section 22 of the Limitation Act when the mistake is corrected and he is treated as a major. Taqui Jan v. Obeidullah (I L R 21 Cal.
866) Amrit Sana v. Gommun (AIR 1926 Lah. 82 ) Narayanchandra v. Dulabchandra (AIR 1927 Cal.
477) and Inderpal Singh v. Bhagwati (AIR 1941 Oudh 47).
3. In A.I Ahmad v. Said Mian (AIR 1924 Lah. 188) it was held that where a wino sues as a major by a bona fide mistake, an application for amendment of the mistake and proper representation may be allowed even if such application is beyond time. In view of these authorities the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct.
3-A. Learned counsel relied upon an observation in Bashidun Nisa v. Mohammad Ismail Khan and others (I L R 31 All. 572 ) in which while dealing with the question whether a minor not represented properly during the suit is a party within the meaning of section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 (section 47 of the present Code of 1908) or not and whether such a minor can raise objection to the decree against him by an application under the above provisions or can file a civil suit to challenge the decree. It was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council that "the appellant way never a party to any of these suits in proper sense of the term. Her sister Ulfat-un-Nisa was, married woman and therefore, was disqualified under section 457 of the Code from being appointed guardian for the suit, and Mauladad's interest was obviously adverse to that of the minor."
4. Learned counsel also relied upon a similar case Pir Tajud Din and another v. Khambatta and others (AIR 1938 Lah. 515 ). These authorities are clearly distinguishable since they do not relate to the question of limitation. The only question in those cases was whether a minor who is not properly represented can file a suit or such a suit is barred by the provisions of section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. That question does not arise in the present case. On the other hand the authorities referred to above all relate to section 22 of the Limitation Act.
5. I do not find any force in the revision petition and dismiss it with costs. Record may be sent back immediately.