The Supreme Court upheld a judgment given by the Madras High Court, which held that an ex-parte decree passed against a minor not represented by a guardian who is duly appointed is a nullity. The Madras Court heard a revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC which was against the refusal of the trial court to set aside the ex parte decree for a specific performance of sale agreement. The trial court had dismissed the application to set aside the ex-parte decree on the ground of unexplained delay of 862 days in preferring the application. One of the defendants in the suit was a minor.
The Supreme Court refused the contentions from the Appellant’s side and observed that the court cannot be negligent in-spite of the fact that the party was negligent and proper procedure must be followed. The apex court also refused to accept High Court’s arguments since the High Court cannot keep the decree aside invoking Article 227 while handling a revision application under 115 CPC.
Thus the court held that it would need to specially establish the failure to appoint guardian ipso facto since it will result in prejudice to the minor. The Supreme Court agreed to the view of the Madras Court that the decree as a whole required to be set aside and not merely against the minor defendant. Therefore, the court found no illegality in the order of the High Court that was warranting our interference under Article 136 and thus, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
We offer a wide range of lawyers to cater to all your every legal needs and requirement.
Our team provides you support in managing your legal issue without any additional and hidden charges.
Once you finalise the lawyer, you can proceed with predefined time estimation & pricing.
Dedicated Case Follow-up Manager to assist you in coordination with the Lawyer.