SHASHIKANT RAI Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 2 Deo Narain Rai filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against petitioner and respondents 1, 3 and 4. In the plaint of the suit which was filed on 02.06.1976 petitioner was arrayed as minor aged 16 years. Petitioner's mother refused to act as his guardian hence Sri Chandra Bali Ram Advocate was appointed as guardian ad litem (G.A.L.). The suit was registered as O.S. No. 164 of 1976, Deo Narain Vs. Subhash and others. In the suit, Advocate who was appointed as G.A.L. of the petitioner applied for permission of the Court for entering into compromise in the suit on behalf of minors. It was stated that the compromise was for the benefit of minor. Application was filed on 29.11.1978 and was allowed on 30.11.1978. Thereafter suit was decreed on 30.11.1978 on the basis of compromise in which plaintiff's exclusive ownership of the house in suit was accepted. Thereafter application for recall of the order accepting the compromise was filed by the petitioner on 01.01.1979, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1979. Munsif Ghazipur, allowed the said application on 11.03.1982, set aside the order dated 30.11.1978 and restored the suit on its number. Against the said order appeal was filed by the plaintiff respondent No. 2 Deo Narain being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1982. The appeal was allowed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Ghazipur on 01.05.1984. Order of Munsif dated 11.03.1982 was set aside.

(2.) Trial Court in penultimate paragraph of its Judgment held that provision of Order 32, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, was violated, interest of minor was not kept in mind and at the time of compromise and its acceptance, it was not seen that whether the compromise was in the interest of minor or not.

(3.) Appellate Court held that at the time of filing and acceptance of compromise petitioner had become major hence all the points taken by the Trial Court were meaningless. Appellate Court further held that petitioner did not apply for discharge of the G.A.L. hence GAL was fully authorised to enter into compromise.