ABHIMAN SINGH Vs. RAM HIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS was a suit by the plaintiffs against two defendants for a declaration that they were the owners in possession of the property described at the foot of the plaint under a sale deed dated 2-11-1931.

(2.) ONE of the defendants namely, Ram Anjor Singh, was a minor at the time of the suit. The plaintiffs had, therefore, to get a guardian ad litem appointed. An application was made proposing the mother as the guardian ad litem. She refused. Then another relation was proposed. He also refused and finally the plaintiffs moved that the court should appoint an advocate as the guardian of the said, minor. Accordingly, Sri Raj Bahadur Lal Vakil was appointed guardian. After his appointment Sri Raj Bahadur Lal made an application for permission to refer the case to the arbitration of one Bhagauti Din Tewari. The court granted permission for the case to be referred. The other defendant Ram Hit Singh, was also a party to the reference. After the case had been referred to the arbitrator appointed and some adjournments had also been granted to the arbitrator, the minor made an application stating that he had received no notice and that his guardian ad litem had been appointed without his knowledge. He prayed for the appointment of another guardian. On this application the court appointed another guardian this time the mother. Then the mother made an application to withdraw the suit from arbitration and this application was granted. Thereafter the suit proceeded as a contested suit and the trial court dismissed it.

(3.) IT is contended before me that once the case had been- referred to arbitration it could not be tried out as a contested suit and it is urged that the mere fact that a notice was not served on the minor before his guardian ad litem was appointed would not make the order of appointment of the guardian void.