SANDEEP Vs. RAM CHANDER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Sandeep (minor) has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Rohtak whereby defence of defendant No.3/petitioner was struck off and order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Rohtak whereby application under Order 32 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC filed by Parmeshwari (Bua) wife of Ram Karan for her appointment as guardian on behalf of the minor/petitioner was rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Ram Chander filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Defendants No.1 and 2 are the biological parents of defendant No.3/petitioner (minor). The plaintiff challenge the adoption deed No.40 dated 26.08.2013 and release deed No.1189 dated 26.08.2013 as outcome of fraud committed by defendants No.1 and The adoption deed of adopting defendant no.1/minor petitioner was claimed to be illegal and was sought to be declared as null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff/alleged adoptive father of defendant No.3/petitioner.

(3.) In the aforesaid suit, defendant No.3/petitioner (minor) was impleaded through defendant No.1 i.e. natural/biological father. Written statement was filed by defendants No.1 and 2 in their own capacity. No written statement was filed by defendant No.1 on behalf of minor defendant No. It was mentioned in the written statement that the minor defendant No.3 is not residing with defendants No.1 and 2, rather he is residing with his Bua namely Parmeshwari in village Kasni Disrict Jhajjar. It was also mentioned that the plaintiff has sued defendant No.3 wrongly through defendant No.1.