Rikhi Ram Vs. Sunka Ram (Deceased) through LRs RSA No.588 of 2019 07.11.2025 Present: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Yamini Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Respondents No.1(i) to 1(iv) and 3 to 6 are proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 09.01.2023. CMP No.10560 of 2025 Respondent No.2-Siri Ram was plaintiff No.2 before the learned trial Court. Respondent No.2-Siri Ram along with six other individuals have filed the suit in the case at hand before the learned trial Court. Siri Ram was the Special Power of Attorney for all the other plaintiffs. Even before the learned First Appellate Court, present respondent No.2-Siri Ram was the Special Power of Attorney on behalf of respondents/plaintiffs before the learned First Appellate Court. The Special Power of Attorney granted to respondent No.2-Siri Ram by the other respondents/plaintiffs still subsists, nothing has been placed on record to show that the same has been revoked. While effecting service of notice, post admission, of the present appeal, as per the service report it was informed that respondent No.7 could not be served, as he suffered from mental ailment. It is in this backdrop that the present application has been filed seeking appointment of a guardian of respondent No.7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is evident that on account of doctrine of “substantial representation”, respondent No.7 herein was effectively represented in suit by the present respondent No.2, who was the Special Power of Attorney holder for respondent No.7 and by a counsel. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Shiv Baran Singh and others vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others, AIR 1993 All 247. The relevant extract, whereof, is being reproduced herein below:- “ 10. It is settled law that if a minor or lunatic is effectively represented and no prejudice is shown to have been caused, the absence of formal order of Court appointing guardian shall not vitiate the proceedings. In Nirmal Chandra Ray v. Khandu Ghose, AIR 1965 Cal 562, the Court observed as follows (at page 569):-- "The doctrine of substantial representation is a matter of substance and not of form, where a minor was effectively represented in a suit by a guardian, although not formally appointed, and suffered no prejudice on account of the informality, the absence of a formal order of appointment of guardian is not fatal to the suit." 11. This principle has been consistently followed in Rani Rekha v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1926 All 545, Brij Kishore Lal v. Satya Narain Lal, AIR 1954 All 599 : (1954 All LJ 443); Rangarnmal v. Appasami Raghavan, AIR 1973 Mad 12, Chatar Bhuj Goel v. Gurpreet Singh, AIR 1983 Punj & Har 406.” Other than the aforesaid, in the case at hand, no prejudice has been alleged to have been caused to respondent No.7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, since the interest of respondent No.7 are duly protected by the Special Power of Attorney i.e. respondent No.2, therefore, there is no need for appointment of a Court guardian. In view of the aforesaid, present application stands disposed of. (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 07th November, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)