RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. BABULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition arises out of order dated 30. 9. 99 of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 1/56, whereby the respondent No. 3's application under Order 32 Rule 7 CPC was allowed.

(2.) A suit for specific performance of a contract dated 23. 12. 82 was instituted by the petitioner (plaintiff) against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 out of whom respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were minors. However on 24. 7. 1992 a compromise was entered into between the parties. This compromise was accepted by the trial court on 24. 8. 92. On 25. 5. 96 when the respondent No. 3 (Ajai Singh) moved an application under Order 32 Rule 7 and Section 151 CPC for setting aside compromise referred to above, on the ground that at the time of compromise, he (respondent No. 3) was minor and the compromise made on behalf of the minor by his guardian Babulal (defendant) was illegal because no permission was sought of the trial Court prior to the compromise on his behalf nor the trial court which accepted the compromise, recorded its satisfaction as to whether the compromise entered into on behalf of the minor was beneficial to the minor. After hearing the parties, the trial court allowed the application under Order 32 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC and set aside the compromise as against respondent No. 3. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) IN the instant case, on an application moved by the minor on attaining his majority under Order 32 Rule 7 and 12 read with Section 151 CPC, the trial court, after examining the proceedings arrived at the conclusion that Babulal (defendant) who was guardian for the minor Ajai Singh (defendant) (respondent No. 3) for the suit failed to establish that he obtained leave of the Court so as to enter into compromise dated 24. 7. 92 on behalf of Ajai Singh (who was minor at that time) with reference to the Suit inasmuch as the trial court merely attested and verified the record either leave or satisfaction as to whether the compromise in question was for the benefit of Ajai Singh (minor ). Thus, in the opinion of the trial court, the decree on the basis of such a compromise dated 24. 7. 92 entered into on behalf of Ajai Singh (minor) by Babulal without leave of the Court so recorded in the suit proceedings was void ab-initio under Rule 7 (2) of Order 32 CPC. IN my considered opinion, the trial court has rightly exercised its discretion and inherent powers under Section 151 CPC for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. There is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impuged order of the trial court so as to warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The conclusions drawn by the trial Court are based on canons of law enunciated by the Apex Court in Dhirendra Garg vs. Sugandhi (1) and by this Court in Akke Singh vs. Durjan Singh I have also carefully examined ratio of decision in aforesaid cases, which are attracted to the facts of the present case.