MINOR RAMANATHAN Vs. SPRMRMMEYYAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The mere absence of a guardian ad litem is not by itself a sufficient cause for allowing an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. Vide Peda Satyam v. Krishnamurthy , where it is pointed out that a guardian ad litem may have perfectly good reason for refusing to put forward a defence on behalf of a minor. We may observe that there is another class of cases, of which this appears to be an instance. It is quite possible for a guardian ad litem knowing that the minor has no defence to the suit, to protract and delay the proceedings by all the varied devises which are commonly practised. When these are exhausted, a further stratagem is to allow a decree to be passed ex parte and then apply to have it set aside, and prefer an appeal from the order refusing to set aside. All these proceedings are very inexpensive and they cause delays which are as vexatious as they are lengthy.

(2.) In this case, we are not satisfied that the guardian has betrayed the interests of the minors. She does not allege this against herself, nor is it apparent. We agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that she was not prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing, and on the facts of this case we hold that her failure to appear did not constitute a sufficient cause for the failure of the minor defendants to appear.

(3.) This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.