JAWANMAL Vs. KANTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C., against the order of the Civil Judge, Sirohi, dated 23-8-1952.

(2.) The facts giving rise to it are that the petitioner Jawanmal brought a suit against seven defendants for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. Defendant 3 Lalchand was described as a minor and his eldest brother Kantilal, defendant 1, was shown as his guardian in the plaint. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 12-1-1952 against the defendants declaring that partnership had come to an end on Kartik Vadi 15, Smt. 2003, Proportionate shares of the parties in the partnership were also declared and it was ordered that accounts be taken. The suit was adjourned for making a final decree to 15-2-1952.

(3.) On 4-4-1952 defendant 3 Lalchand moved an application saying that the plaintiff had sued him as a minor and given his age as 12 years but this was incorrect and that he was a major on the date of the institution of the suit. According to him, he was born on 1-6-1932 and, therefore, on 20-7-1950 when the suit was instituted he had completed 18 years. It was prayed that since he was impleaded as a minor in spite of being a major, he could not be considered to be party to the suit and, therefore, the preliminary decree be set aside, he be treated as a major and the proceedings be started afresh. It was also pointed out by him that no notice regarding the appointment of his guardian was given to him according to the provisions of Order 32, Rule 3 (4), C. P. C., that he had, therefore, no knowledge about the institution of the suit, that he came to know of it at a very late stage when a talk about a compromise between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 was going on, and that even if he were a minor, the proceedings against him were vitiated on account of the said error.