SHANTI DEVI Vs. PUSHPAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 12th March, 1979 passed by Shri V.K. Jain, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi allowing the application of Smt. Pushpa Wati Chadha (Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein) under Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Smt. Shanti Devi Defendant No. 1 petitioner herein) as guardian-ad- litem of minor defendant Miss Veena Kumiri.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the defendants in respect of shop No. 9941, Nawab Ganj. Library Road, Delhi. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants. On 6th November, 1978 counsel for defendants 1 to 7 put in appearance and filed the written statement. No appearance was put in on behalf of Miss Veena Kumari (Minor), defendant No. 8 in the suit. The learned counsel for defendants 1 to 7 submitted on that date that defendant No, 1 does not want to be appointed as guardian of defendant No. 8. Defendant No. 1 to 7 also took a preliminary objection in the written statement that no application under Order 32 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed for the appointment of guardian of minor defendant No. 8 and even as per the mandatory provisions of law no list of relations of minor has been filed and thus the suit merits dismissal on this short ground. The Court adjourned the case on 6th November, 1977 for further proceedings regarding defendant No. 8. The plaintiff then moved an application under Order 32 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying that Smt. Shanti Devi is the real mother of defendant No. 8 and she is the natural guardian of defendant No. 8 (minor), that Smt. Shanti Devi being the natural guardian has no interest adverse to that of the minor and she is a fit person to be appointed as guardian and that under the provisions of Order 32, a guardian is to be appointed on behalf of minor defendant No. 8. Defendants 1 to 7 raised an objection that the application is misconceived and is not maintainable as no list of relations of the minor with. their addresses as required under the provisions of law has been filed and even no affidavit that the person who is to be appointed as guardian of the minor is a fit person, has been filed, along with the application.

(3.) By the impugned order dated 12th March, 1979, the trial Court noted that it is not disputed that defendant No. 1 is the mother of defendant No. 8. Thereafter, the application was allowed and defendant No. 1 was appointed as guardian of defendant No. 8.