HARISH Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' revision under Section 115, C.P.C. directed against the order dated September 27, 1980 of the learned Civil Judge, Pali by which he dismissed the application under Order XIV, Rule 5, C. P. C. on Sept., 6, 1980 which was filed on behalf of the guardian-ad-litem of the minor defendants No. 2, 3, 7 and 8 for framing of the additional issues.

(2.) The defendant-non-petitioners instituted a suit for redemption of mortgage and rendition of accounts on January 8, 1973. The plaint is dated Dec. 11, 1972. The suit was resisted by defendants Nos. 1 & 4 on various grounds by filing a written statement dated Jan. 10, 1974. A rejoinder was filed by the plaintiffs on Feb. 28, 1974. On behalf of minor defendants Nos. 2, 3, 7 and 8, guardian-ad-litem filed the written statement on July 15, 1973. The learned Civil Judge framed as many as 16 issues inclusive of the relief. Issue No. 13 relating to the Court fee was decided in favour of the defendants and the plaintiffs were directed to make up the deficit Court fee and amend the plaint On Jan. 5, 1979, defendant No. 2 Harish moved an application under Order XXXH, Rules 3 and 4 read with Section 151, C.P.C. praying that as he has become major one month before the date of the application he may be permitted to file the written statement and his guardian-ad-litem may be removed and in the light of the written statement that may be filed by him, issues may be struck and evidence may be recorded. On Feb. 3, 1980, the learned Civil Judge directed that defendant No. 2 may participate in the proceedings and if he likes, he may also examine himself as witness and produce evidence. S. B. Civil Revision No. 101/80: Harish v. Somnath was filed against the order. The revision was dismissed on May 7, 1980. After dismissal of the revision, on Sept. 6, 1980, an application was moved by defendant No. 2 Harish under Order XIV, Rule 5, C.P.C., praying that in view of the written statement that was filed on behalf of the minor defendants by the guardian-adlitem, necessary additional issues arising out of that were not framed and, therefore, issues Nos. 1 to 6 stated in the application may be framed. This application was opposed on behalf of the plaintiffs by filing a reply on Sept. 20, 1980. The learned Civil Judge, by his order dated Sept. 27, 1980, dismissed the application. Defendant No. 2 has come to this Court in revision as aforesaid.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties stated that the revision may be disposed of at the admission stage. This Court, therefore, ordered that the revision will be taken up for hearing after service on non-petitioners No. 4 to 10. Record has been received.