MOHIT Vs. RADHA GOVIND TALUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision petition assailing the order of the learned trial Court whereby it rejected application of Geetadevi mother and natural guardian of minor Mohit and thereby the trial court declined to interfere with appointment of Shri Satish Modi (Advocate) as court guardian of minor Mohit and further declined to the prayer of applicant to file additional written statement on minor Mohit having attained majority.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts are that during pendency of a suit for eviction filed by plaintiff (respondent No.l), original defendant Vijay Narain Khandelwal had died and in his place his eight legal heirs were substituted and arrayed as defendants, out of whom Babulal defendant No. 1/1 had also died thereby his minor son Mohit (petitioner) besides his other legal representative including his wife Geetadevi were brought on record as defendant No. 1/1/1. Thereafter the trial court after keeping in view provisions contained in Order 32 CPC, appointed one Satish Modi Advocate as Court guardian of minor Mohit on a fees fixed at Rs. 1100/ - and he was furnished with necessary and requisite copies of the plaint and other allied pleadings of the parties on record. But Geetadevi mother and natural guardian of minor Mohit (petitioner) moved an application complaining that his lis interests were not being properly looked into by the court guardian, inasmuch as neither summon of plaint nor notice by court guardian had been, served, therefore, it has been prayed that his mother and natural guardian be appointed instead of court guardian so as to properly represent on his behalf and for interests in the suit, besides by furnishing with copy of plaint so as to enable to file additional written statement. The plaintiff protested the application moved by Geetadevi on behalf of minor defendant Mohit (petitioner). After hearing the parties, the trial court by the impugned order dated 20.1.1998 rejected and declined to the prayers made by Geetadavi on behalf of minor defendant Mohit. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order so also the citations made at the bar, viz. (1) Rajeev v. Devinarain Mathw 1997(1) WLC 71; (2) Mai Kiyat Singh v. Om Prakash and (3) Ambrishkumar Tiwari v. Sitaram (1997) (3) WLC 193.