2021 INSC 0306
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPEME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2492 OF 2021
K.P. NATARAJAN & ANR.                                  … PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
MUTHALAMMAL & ORS.             …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. In a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short  “the Code” ), challenging an order
of   the   trial   Court   refusing   to   condone   the   delay   of   862   days   in
seeking to set aside an ex­parte decree for specific performance, the
High   Court   found   that   the   ex­parte  decree  was   a  nullity,   as  it  was
passed   against   a   minor   without   the   minor   being   represented   by   a
guardian   duly   appointed   in   terms   of   the   procedure   contemplated
1

under Order XXXII,  Rule 3 of the Code.  Therefore, the High Court,
exercising   its   power   of   superintendence   under   Article   227   of   the
Constitution,   set   aside   the   ex­parte   decree   itself   on   condition   that
the   petitioners   before   the   High   Court/defendants   pay   a   sum   of
Rs.2,50,000/­, representing the amount already spent by the decree
holders in purchasing stamp paper etc.  Aggrieved by the said order
of   the   High   Court,   the   decree   holders   are   before   us   in   this   special
leave petition.
2. We   have   heard   Mr.   S.   Nagamuthu,   learned   senior   Counsel
appearing   for   the   petitioners/plaintiffs   and   Mr.   R.
Balasubramanian,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the
respondents/defendants.
3. In a suit O.S. No.264 of 2013 filed by the petitioners­ herein  for
specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 25.04.2011, the
respondents   were   duly   served   with   summons,   but   after   having
entered   appearance   through   counsel   they   remained   ex­parte.   The
trial Court decreed the suit ex­parte on 08.04.2015.
4. At   this   stage   it   may   be   relevant   to   take   note   of   one   fact,
namely, that the petitioners sought, as an alternate relief, a decree
2

for refund of the money paid with interest at 18% per annum in the
event   of   the   Court   not   granting   the   relief   of   specific   performance.
But the trial Court held   albeit   without reasons, that the petitioners
are entitled, for the primary relief of specific performance.
5. In the plaint as it was filed by the petitioners­ herein , the third
defendant was described as   “minor S Aravindarajan, aged about 16
years, son of Sampathkumar represented by the next friend father M.
Sampathkumar”.   Therefore, the petitioners had filed, along with the
plaint,   an   application   in   I.A   No.981   of   2013   under   Order   XXXII,
Rule 3 of the Code for appointing the second respondent­ herein  (his
father  and the second defendant) as the guardian of the minor. As
noted by the High Court, the trial Court, after serving notice on the
second   defendant,   passed   an   Order   in   I.A.No.   981   of   2013   on
23.03.2014 to the following effect:­ 
“Batta   served.   Vakalat   by   guardian   to   minor
filed. Hence this petition is closed.”
6. Seeking execution of the decree, the petitioners filed E.P No.33
of   2015.   Notices   were   served   on   all   the   respondents   in   the
Execution Petition and the Execution Petition is said to have come
3

up for hearing on two dates in December­2015 and on several dates
in   the   year   2016.   Eventually   the   respondents   were   set   ex­parte   in
the Execution Petition on 18.10.2016 and the petition was allowed. 
7. Thereafter   the   respondents   filed   an   application   in   November­
2016 for setting  aside the ex­parte order in the Execution Petition.
It was numbered only in the year 2017 as E.A. No.40 of 2017.
8. But   in   the   meantime   the   petitioners   were   called   upon   to
deposit non­judicial stamp papers of the value of Rs.1,98,000/­ for
the execution of the sale deed. They did so and a sale deed was in
fact executed by the Court on 04.01.2017.  
9. It is only thereafter that the respondents filed an application in
I.A   No.142   of   2017   for   condonation   of   the   delay   of   862   days   in
seeking   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte   decree.   This   application   filed   on
19.09.2017   was   dismissed   by   the   trial   Court   by   an   order   dated
28.11.2017,   primarily   on   three   grounds   namely:   (i)   that   there   was
no   proper   explanation   for   the   delay;   (ii)   that   even   the   written
statement   was   not   filed   within   the   time   stipulated   in   Order   VIII,
Rule   7;   and   (iii)   and   that   after   allowing   even   the   execution   to
proceed   ex­parte   and   after   having   allowed   the   sale   deed   to   be
4

executed   by   the   Executing   Court,   the   respondents   cannot   seek
condonation of the huge delay.
10. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition to condone the delay
in  seeking  to set aside the  ex­parte decree, the respondents filed a
revision   petition   under   Section   115   of   the   Code   before   the   High
Court.   Entertaining   a   doubt   about   the   appointment   of   a   guardian
for   the   third   defendant,   the   learned   Judge   summoned   the   original
records in the  suit from  the trial Court. Finding  that  I.A No.981 of
2013  filed   along   with   the   plaint  for   the  appointment   of  a   guardian
for the third defendant, was not properly dealt with and that there
was no appointment of a guardian for the minor as required under
Order  XXXII,  Rule  3, the  learned  Judge invoked the  general  power
of   superintendence   under   Article   227   of   the   Constitution   and   set
aside   the   ex­parte   decree   itself,   without   going   into   the   question   of
delay and without examining whether there was sufficient cause for
condonation of delay.  In order to ensure that the petitioners/decree
holders are not poorer after a decree (or because of the decree), the
learned   Judge   put   the   respondents   on   condition   that   they   should
pay   of   Rs.2,50,000/­   as   cost   to   the   petitioners­ herein   on   or   before
5

16.10.2020,   as   the   petitioners/decree   holders   had   already
deposited   stamp   papers   of   the   value   of   Rs.1,98,000/­   and   got   the
sale deed executed.
11. It   appears   that   pursuant   to   the   aforesaid   order   of   the   High
Court,   the   respondents   deposited   the   cost   of   Rs.2,50,000/­   on
12.10.2020.   As   a   consequence,   the   trial   Court   appears   to   have
taken up the suit for trial after framing issues. It is stated by Mr. R.
Balasubramanian,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   respondents   that
the suit now stands posted for examination of PW­1.  
12. The main grounds of attack, to the impugned order of the High
Court, as articulated by Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel
for   the   petitioners   are   :­   (i)   that   the   High   Court   ought   not   to   have
set aside an ex­parte decree, in a revision petition arising out of an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963;  (ii)  that the
Court   was   not   even   entitled   to   invoke   equity   in   favour   of   the
respondents who were grossly negligent, first in defending the suit,
next in defending the executing proceedings and then in seeking to
set   aside   the   ex­parte   decree   after   nearly   a   year   of   seeking   to   set
aside the ex­parte   order passed in the Execution Petition; and   (iii)
6

that it was not even one of the grounds raised or points argued by
the   respondents­ herein   in   their   revision   petition   before   the   High
Court either that the procedure prescribed under Order XXXII, Rule
3 of the Code was not followed or that a grave prejudice or injustice
has been caused to the defendant/minor, on account of the failure,
if any, on the part of the trial Court.
13. Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for
the   respondents   contended   in   response,   that   the   revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 are wider in nature
and   that   when   the   High   Court   finds   that   the   trial   Court   has   not
taken   care   of   the   interest   of   the   minor   who   was   a   party   to   the
proceeding, by following  the procedure prescribed by  law, the High
Court cannot shut its eyes on the basis of technicalities. 
14. We   have   carefully   considered   the   rival   contentions.     There   is
no dispute on facts and there is no escape from the conclusion that
the   respondents   have   been   grossly   negligent   in   defending   the   suit
as   well   as   the   execution   proceedings.   But   the   fact   remains   that
while the parties can afford to remain negligent, the Court cannot.
The   High   Court   has   found,   after   summoning   the   records   from   the
7

trial Court that as a matter of fact, the trial Court failed to appoint
a guardian for the third respondent/minor in a manner prescribed
by law. As pointed out earlier, an application was in fact filed by the
petitioners­ herein /plaintiffs under  Order XXXII, Rule 3 of the Code
in  I.A No.981  of 2013.  The said application was  closed by  the  trial
Court by an Order passed on 23.03.2014, which we have extracted
elsewhere.   The   manner   in   which   the   trial   Court   disposed   of   the
application under  Order  XXXII, Rule 3, is without doubt, improper
and cannot at all be sustained, especially in the teeth of the Madras
Amendment.   
15. Order   XXXII,   Rule   3,   is   found   in   the   First   Schedule   to   the
Code.   Under   Section   121   of   the   Code,   the   Rules   in   the   First
Schedule   shall   have   effect   as   if   enacted   in   the   body   of   the   Code
until   annulled   or   altered   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of
Part­X,   which   comprises   of   Sections   121   to   131.   The   High   Courts
are empowered under Section 122 of the Code to annul/alter or add
to   all   or   any   of   the   Rules   in   the   First   Schedule,   for   regulating   the
procedure of the civil courts subject to their superintendence.
8

16. In   exercise   of   such   a   power,   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at
Madras   has   made   Rule   3   of   Order   XXXII   of   the   Code,   much   more
elaborate than how the Rule was originally framed.
17. In the impugned order, the learned Judge has extracted Order
XXXII, Rule 3 of the Code in its original form. But in its application
to   civil   courts   subject   to   the   superintendence   of   the   Madras   High
Court Order XXXII, Rule 3 1
 actually reads as follows:­
`”3.   Qualifications   to   be   a   next   friend   or
guardian.   – (1) Any person who is of sound mind and
has attained majority may act as next friend of a minor
or as his guardian for the suit:
Provided   that   the   interest   of   that   person   is   not
adverse   to   that   of   the   minor   and   that   he   is   not   in   the
case   of   a   next   friend,   defendant,   or   in   the   case   of   a
guardian for the suit, a plaintiff.
(2) Appointed   or   declared   guardians   to   be   preferred
and   to   be   superseded   only   for   reasons   recorded.   –
Where   a   minor   has   a   guardian   appointed   or   declared
by   competent   authority   no   person   other   than   the
guardian shall act as the next friend of the minor or be
appointed   his   guardian   for   the   suit   unless   the   Court
considers,   for   reasons   to   be   recorded,   that   it   is   for   the
minor’s welfare that another person be permitted to act
or be appointed, as the case may be.
(3) Guardians   to   be   appointed   by   Court.­   Where   the
defendant   is   a   minor,   the   Court,   on   being   satisfied   of
the fact of his minority, shall appoint a proper person to
be guardian for the suit for the minor.
1      The  amendment  was  made  by  a Notification  in  P.  Dis.  No.256  of  1938  Vide  St.  George  Gazette,  dated
13­3­1938.  Unfortunately most of the Bare Acts published in recent times and even the 19 th
 Edition of Mulla
on the Code of Civil Procedure does not make a mention of the Notification number and date in so far as the
Madras Amendment is concerned.
9

(3A) A person appointed under sub­rule (3) to be
guardian   for   the   suit   for   a   minor   shall   unless   his
appointment   is   terminated   by   retirement,   removal     or
death   continue   as   such   throughout   all   proceedings
arising   out   of   the   suit   including   proceedings   in   any
appellate   or   revisional   Court   and   any   proceeding   in
execution of a decree.
(4) Appointment   to   be   on   application   and   where
necessary  after  notice  to   proposed   guardian.­   An  order
for   the   appointment   of   a   guardian   for   the   suit   may   be
obtained upon application in the name and on behalf of
the minor or by the Plaintiff. The application, where it is
by   the   plaintiff,   shall   set   forth,   in   the   order   of   their
suitability, a list of persons (with their full addresses for
service of notice in Form  No. 11A set  forth in Appendix
H.   Hereto)   who   are   competent   and   qualified   to   act   as
guardian for the suit for the minor defendant. The Court
may, for reasons to be recorded in any particular case,
exempt the applicant from furnishing the list referred to
above.
(5) Contents of affidavit in support of the application
for   appointment   of   guardian.­   The   application   referred
to   in   the   above   sub­rule   whether   made   by   the   plaintiff
or on behalf of the minor defendant shall be supported
by   an   affidavit   verifying   the   fact   that   the   proposed
guardian   has   not   or   that   no   one   of   the   proposed
guardians   has   any   interest   in   the   matters   in
controversy in the suit adverse to that of the minor and
that the proposed guardian or guardians are fit persons
to   be   so   appointed.     The   affidavit   shall   further   state
according   to   the   circumstances   of   each   case   (a)
particulars   of   any   existing   guardian   appointed   or
declared   by   competent   authority,   (b)   the   name   and
address   of   the   person,   if   any,   who   is   the   de   facto
guardian  of  the   minor,  (c)  the   names  and  addresses  of
persons, if any, who in the event of either the natural or
the   de   facto   guardian   or   the   guardian   appointed   or
declared by competent authority, not being permitted to
act,   are   by   reason   of   relationship   or   interest   or
otherwise, suitable persons  to act as  guardians  for the
minor for the suit.
10

(6) Application   for   appointment   of   guardian   to   be
separate   from   application   for   bringing   on   record   the
legal   representatives   of   a   deceased   party.   –   An
Application   for   the   appointment   of   a   guardian   for   the
suit   of   a   minor   shall   not   be   combined   with   an
application   for   bringing   on   record   the   legal
representatives   of   a   deceased   plaintiff   or   defendant.
The applications shall be by separate petitions.
(7) Notice   of   application   to   be   given   to   persons
interested   in   the   minor   defendant   other   than   the
proposed   guardian.–   No   order   shall   be   made   on   any
application under sub­rule (4) above except upon notice
to  any  guardian  of   the  minor appointed  or  declared  by
an authority competent in that behalf or where there is
no   guardian,   upon   notice   to   the   father   or   other   natural
guardian   of   the   minor,   or   where   there   is   no   father   or
other natural guardian, to the person in whose care the
minor is, and after hearing any objection which may be
urged on behalf of any person served with notice under
this sub­rule. The  notice required by this sub­rule shall
be   served   six   clear   days   before   the   day   named   in   the
notice  for the  hearing  of  the  application and  may be  in
Form No. 11 set forth in Appendix H hereto.
(8)  Special   provision   to   shorten   delay   in   getting   a
guardian   appointed.­Where   the   application   is   by   the
plaintiff,   he   shall,   along   with   his   application   and
affidavit   referred   to   in   sub­rules   (4)   and   (5)   above,
produce the necessary forms in duplicate filled in to the
extent   that   is   possible   at   that   stage,   for   the   issue
simultaneous of notices  to  two  at  least  of the proposed
guardians  for the  suit  to  be  selected  by the  Court  from
the list referred to in sub­rule (4) above together with a
duly   stamped   voucher   indicating   that   the   fees
prescribed for service have been paid. 
If   one   or   more   of   the   proposed   guardians   signify   his
or   their   consent   to   act,   the   Court   shall   appoint   one   of
them   and   intimate   the   fact   of   such   appointment   to   the
person   appointed   by   registered   post.   If   no   one   of   the
persons   served   signifies   his   consent   to   act,   the   Court
shall   proceed   to   serve   simultaneously   another   selected
two,   if   so   many   there   be,   of   the   persons   named   in   the
11

list   referred   to   in   sub­rule   (4)   above   but   no   fresh
application   under   sub­rule   (4)   shall   be   deemed
necessary.     The   applicant   shall   within   three   days   of
intimation  of  unwillingness   by the   first  set  of   proposed
guardians,   pay   the   prescribed   fee   for   service   and
produce the necessary forms duly filled in.
(9) No personal shall be appointed guardian without
his   consent.­   No   person   shall   without   his   consent,   be
appointed   guardian   for   the   suit.     Whenever   an
application is made proposing the name of a person as
guardian for the suit a notice in Form No.11 A set forth
in   Appendix   H   hereto   shall   be   served   on   the   proposed
guardian, unless the applicant himself be the proposed
guardian or the proposed guardian consents.
(10)   Court   guardian.­   When   to   be   appointed­How   he
is   to   be   placed   in   funds.­   Where   the   Court   finds   no
person fit and willing to act as guardian for the suit, the
Court may appoint any of its officers or a pleader of the
Court  to be the guardian and  may direct that the costs
to   be   incurred  by  that   officer  in  the   performance   of   the
duties as guardian shall be borne either by the parties
or by any one or more of the parties to the suit or out of
any fund in Court in which the minor is interested, and
may   give   directions   for   the   repayment   or   allowance   of
the   costs   as   justice   and   the   circumstances   of   the   case
may require.
(11)   Funds for a guardian other than Court guardian
to   defend.­   When   a   guardian   for   the   suit   of   a   minor
defendant is appointed and it is made to appear to the
Court   that   the   guardian   is   not   in   possession   of   any   or
sufficient   funds  for  the  conduct  of  the   suit  on  behalf  of
the defendant and that the defendant will be prejudiced
in   his   defence   thereby,   the   Court   may,   from   time   to
time,   order   the   plaintiff   to   advance   monies   to   the
guardian   for   purpose   of   his   defence   and   all   monies   so
advanced  shall  form part of  the  costs  of  the  plaintiff  in
the   suit.     The   order   shall   direct   that   the   guardians,   as
and when directed, shall file in Court an account of the
monies so received by him.”
12

18. There   is   a   great   deal   of   difference   between   the   Rules   of
Procedure   laid   down   in   Rule   3   of   Order   XXXII   by   the   Central   Act
and   Rule   3   as   applicable   to   civil   courts   subject   to   the
superintendence   of   Madras   High   Court.   Order  XXXII,   Rule  3   in   its
original form reads as follows:­
“3. Guardian for the suit to be appointed by court
for   minor   defendant.­   (1)   Where   the   defendant   is   a
minor,   the   court,   on   being   satisfied   of   the   fact   of   his
minority,   shall   appoint   a   proper   person   to   be   guardian
for the suit for such minor.
(2)   An   order   for   the   appointment   of   a   guardian   for   the
suit may be obtained upon application in the name and
on behalf of the minor or by the plaintiff.
(3)   Such   application   shall   be   supported   by   an   affidavit
verifying   the   fact   that   the   proposed   guardian   has   no
interest in the matters in controversy in the suit adverse
to that of the minor and that he is a fit person to be so
appointed.
(4)   No   order   shall   be   made   on   any   application   under
this   rule   except   upon   notice   to   any   guardian   of   the
minor appointed or declared by an authority competent
in   that   behalf,   or,   where   there   is   no   such   guardian,
upon notice to the father, or where there is no father, to
the   mother,   or   where   there   is   no   father   or   mother,   to
other   natural   guardian   of   the   minor,   or,  where   there   is
no   father,   mother,   or   other   natural   guardian,   to   the
person   in   whose   care   the   minor   is,   and   after   hearing
any   objection   which   may   be   urged   on   behalf   of   any
person served with notice under this sub­rule.
(4A)   The   Court   may,   in   any   case,   if   it   thinks   fit,   issue
notice under sub­rule (4) to the minor also.
13

(5)   A   person   appointed   under   sub­rule   (1)   to   be
guardian   for   the   suit   for   a   minor   shall,   unless   his
appointment   is   terminated   by   retirement,   removal   or
death,   continue   as   such   throughout   all   proceedings
arising   out   of   the   suit   including   proceedings   in   any
Appellate   or   Revisional   Court   and   any   proceedings   in
the execution of a decree.”
19. A   comparison   of   the   two   sets   of   Rules   show   that   the   rules
applicable   to   Courts   subject   to   the   superintendence  of   the   Madras
High   Court   are   more   elaborate   and   also   rigorous.   We   may
immediately note  (i)  that sub­rules (1) and (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules
applicable   to   Courts   subject   to   the   superintendence  of   the   Madras
High   Court   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “ applicable   rules”   for   the
purpose of convenience ),   are additional requirements;   (ii)   that sub­
rule  (3)  of   Rule  3  of   the   ‘ applicable   rules ’  is   a  reproduction   of  sub­
rule   (1)   of   Rule   3   of   the   original   Code;   (iii)   that   sub­rule   (3­A)   of
Rule   3   of   the   ‘ applicable   rules’   is   a   reproduction   of   sub­rule   (5)   of
the Central Act;  (iv ) sub­rule (7) of Rule 3 of the ‘ applicable rules ’ is
an improved version of sub­rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Central Act.
20. More importantly   sub­rules (4), (5), (6) and  a  part  of sub­rule
(7) of Rule 3 of Order XXXII of the ‘ applicable rules ’ prescribe certain
additional   requirements   which   are   as   follows:­   (i)   when   an
14

application  for   the  appointment   of  a  guardian  is  by  the   plaintiff, it
shall set forth in the order of their suitability, a list of persons with
their full addresses for service of notice in Form No.11­A set forth in
Appendix H, who are competent and qualified to act as guardian for
the   minor   defendant;   (ii)   the   application   for   appointment   of   a
guardian   should   be   supported   by   an   affidavit,   not   merely   verifying
(as   in  the   Central   Act)   the  fact   that   the   proposed   guardian  has   no
interest in the matters in controversy adverse to that of the minor,
but   also   stating   additional   particulars   including   the   name   and
address   of   the   de­facto   guardian   and   the   names   and   addresses   of
other   suitable   persons,   whenever   a   natural   or   de­facto   guardian   is
not permitted to act.
21. Admittedly, the learned Judge summoned the records from the
trial Court after  entertaining  a doubt about the procedure followed
by the trial Court in this case and found as a matter of fact that the
trial   Court   failed   to   appoint   a   guardian   for   the   third   defendant   as
required by Order XXXII, Rule 3. The power of the learned Judge to
call   for   the   records   and   examine   the   same,   in   a   revision   under
Section   115(1)   of   the   Code   is   not   and   cannot   be   doubted   or
15

questioned by the petitioners. It is true that the learned Judge was
dealing   only   with   a   revision   petition   arising   out   of   an   Order
dismissing   a   petition   under   Section   5   of   the   Limitation   Act,   1963.
But   it   does   not   take   away   or   curtail   the   jurisdiction   of   the   High
Court   to   look   into   the   records   with   particular   reference   to   an
important   rule   of   procedure,   especially   when   the   same   relates   to
something concerning persons under disability. The rigorous nature
of  the   Madras  amendment   to  Rule  3 of  Order  XXXII, is  perhaps  to
be attributed to the wider jurisdiction that the High Court exercised
on   its   original   side,   under   Clause­17   of   the   Letters   Patent   and   the
parens   patriae   jurisdiction   that   a   Court   normally   exercises   while
dealing  with cases of minors. Therefore, we find no illegality in the
action   of  the   High  Court   in  summoning   the  original   records  in   the
suit and finding out whether or not a guardian of a minor defendant
was   appointed   properly   in   accordance   with   the   procedure
prescribed in Order XXXII, Rule 3, even in the absence of a specific
contention being raised by the petitioners.  
22. The contention that in a revision arising out of the dismissal of
a   petition   under   Section   5   of   the   Limitation   Act,   1963,   the   High
16

Court   cannot   set   aside   the   ex­parte   decree   itself,   by   invoking   the
power under Article 227, does not appeal to us. It is too well settled
that the powers of the High Court under Article 227 are in addition
to   and   wider   than   the   powers   under   Section   115   of   the   Code.   In
Surya   Dev   Rai   vs.   Ram   Chander   Rai   and   Others 2
,   this   Court
went as far as to hold that even   certiorari   under Article 226 can be
issued   for   correcting   gross   errors   of   jurisdiction   of   a   subordinate
Court.  But the correctness of the said view in so far as it related to
Article   226,   was   doubted   by   another   Bench,   which   resulted   in   a
reference to a three member Bench. In  Radhey Shyam & Anr. vs.
Chhabi   Nath   &   Others 3
,   the   three   member   Bench,   even   while
overruling   Surya   Dev   Rai   (supra)   on   the   question   of   jurisdiction
under   Article   226,   pointed   out   that   the   jurisdiction   under   Article
227   is   distinguishable.   Therefore,   we   do   not   agree   with   the
contention that the High Court committed an error of jurisdiction in
invoking Article 227 and setting aside the ex­parte decree. 
23. In fact the learned Judge also went into the question whether
a   decree   passed   against   a   minor   without   proper   appointment   of   a
2    (2003) 6 SCC 675
3   (2015) 5 SCC 423
17

guardian, is a nullity   ipso facto   or whether the same would depend
upon   prejudice   against   the   minor   being   established.   The   learned
Judge found that in this case, the minor was prejudiced.
24. It   may   be   of   interest   to   note   that   Rule   3­A   was   inserted   in
Order   XXXII   by   CPC   Amendment   Act   104   of   1976.   It   is   this   Rule
that   introduced   for   the   first   time   into   the   Code,   the   question   of
prejudice   to   the   minor.   But   this   Rule   3­A   applies   only   to   cases
where the next friend or  guardian for the suit of the minor  had an
interest   in   the   subject   matter   of   the   suit   adverse   to   that   of   the
minor. This amendment was a sequel to certain conflicting opinions
on   the   question   as   to   whether   a   decree   passed   in   cases   where   the
minor   was   represented   by   a   guardian   who   had   an   interest   in   the
subject matter of the suit adverse to that of the minor, was void or
voidable.
25. In other words the Parliament chose to introduce the element
of   prejudice,   specifically   in   relation   to   one   category   of   cases   under
Order   XXXII,   Rule   3A.   The   case   on   hand   does   not   fall   under   that
category.   In   any   case,   we   need   not   go   into   that   question   in   this
case, as the learned Judge found that the minor was prejudiced.
18

26. A  valiant  attempt was  made during  the  hearing, to  show  that
the   3 rd
  Respondent/defendant   was   not   a   minor   at   all.   Such   a
contention   was   sought   to   be   raised   on   the   basis   of   the   long   cause
title   in   the   execution   application   E.A.No.65   of   2017   where   the   3 rd
Respondent  was described as a person  aged about 24 years in the
year 2017. Therefore, it was sought to be contended that he should
have   attained   majority   long   before   the   ex   parte   decree   and   that
therefore the question of appointment of a guardian and the decree
becoming a nullity did not arise.
27 . The said contention  is to be stated only  to be rejected. It was
the petitioners herein who filed the suit in the year 2013 describing
the   3 rd
  defendant   as   a   minor   and   seeking   the   appointment   of   a
guardian. Therefore, there is no place for any innovative arguments
contrary to one’s own pleadings.
28. Another   contention   was   raised   that   in   any   event,   the   decree
could   have   been   set   aside   only   as   against   the   3 rd
  Respondent   and
not   against   all   the   others.   But   the   said   logic   does   not   apply   to
something that is a nullity in law.
19

29. The  reliance  placed  by  the   learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners
upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in
Lanka   Sanyasi   vs.   Lanka   Yerran   Naidu 4
  is   misplaced.   The
question in  Lanka Sanyasi  (supra) was whether a person who had
become   a   major   on   the   date   on   which   a   compromise   decree   was
passed in a suit, was entitled to challenge the compromise decree in
a   subsequent   suit.   The   subsequent   suit   was   decreed   by   the   First
Appellate Court and while dealing with the Second Appeal, the High
Court   held   in   Lanka   Sanyasi   that   a   mere   circumstance   that   a
minor   defendant  had  attained majority  during  the  pendency   of the
suit, but not elected to continue the defence himself and to have his
guardian  ad litem  discharged, is not sufficient to enable him to have
the   judgment   passed   in   the   suit   declared   as   not   binding   on   him.
Nothing turned on the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 3 in the said
case.
30. The decision of the Travancore Cochin High Court in   Ouseph
Joseph   vs.   Thoma   Eathamma 5
,   relied   upon   by   the   petitioners,
4   1929 Law Weekly 455
5   AIR 1956 TC 26
20

more   than   helping  the   petitioners,  confirms   that   the   view  taken   in
the impugned order is correct.
31. The   decision   in   Divya   Dip   Singh   and   others   vs.   Ram
Bachan Mishra and others 6
,   concerned the question whether the
appointment   of   a   guardian   for  a  minor   under   Order   XXXII,   Rule   3
will   take   away   the   right   of   the   natural   guardian.   The   answer   was
too obvious and the same has nothing to do with the issue on hand.
32 . The  decision  of  the  Rajasthan  High Court  in   Anandram   and
another   vs.   Madholal and others 7
  relied upon by the petitioners,
dealt   with   the   question   of   prejudice   to   the   minor,   specially   in   the
context   of   the   father   filing   a   written   statement   on   behalf   of   the
minors and admitting receipt of part consideration. In  Rangammal
vs.   Minor   Appasami 8
  there was  a  finding  on  fact  that   the  minor’s
interests   were   sufficiently   safeguarded   in   the   suit.   Therefore,   none
of   these   decisions   relied   upon   by   the   petitioners,   advance   their
cause.
6   (1997) 1 SCC 504
7   AIR 1960 Raj 189 
8   85 Law Weekly 574
21

33. Therefore,   we   find   no   illegality   in   the   order   of   the   High   Court
warranting   our   interference   under   Article   136.   Hence,   this   Special
Leave Petition is dismissed.
……………………………..J.
(INDIRA BANERJEE)
………………………………..J.
(V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)
New Delhi
July 16, 2021
22