AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 28.09.2005 passed in E.A. No. 481 of 2003 in
E.P. No. 58 of 2003 in Chit case No. 171 of 2002 by the learned District Munsif, Periyakulam. Heard both sides.
A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil Revision Petition would run thus:
The Civil Revision Petition is focussed by two minors represented by their next friend Ramesh, as against the order passed in E.A. No. 481 of
2003, which was filed before the Executing Court by Ramesh u/s 47 of the CPC for the purpose of getting dismissal of the E.P. on the ground that
the decree was obtained before the Chit Registrar, without taking steps to get appointed a proper guardian for the minors.
I need not further delineate the facts in view of the short law point involved in this case.
The learned Counsel for the first respondent/decree holder at the first instance would state that in fact before the Chit Registrar, the mother of
the minors was appointed as guardian and she was defending the case and ultimately the arbitration award was passed and in the E.P. filed by the
decree holder, the same mother was cited as guardian for the minors.
Be that as it may, I need not go into the factual details at this stage. But one thing is clear that the said Ramesh who projected himself as the next
friend of minors viz., Vishagan and B. Bharath Ganesh, admittedly did not get any permission from the Court for permitting him to proceed with the
matter as guardian for the minors in replacement of their mother, the nature guardian.
It is quite obvious that the status of the minors in the proceedings is only that of judgment debtors and that the status of the judgments debtors is
on par with the status of defendants. In such a case, the question of appointing next friend will not arise and appointment of guardian representing
them would be essential. Already as per the records available, the minors'' mother happened to be the Court recognised guardian for the minors. In
such a case, Ramesh, suo motu could have legally styled himself as guardian or next friend for the minors and he was not justified in proceeding
with the application u/s 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this aspect has not been taken note of by the executing Court. Ramesh is none but soi-
disant next friend of the minors, which is impermissible under law.
Hence, on this ground itself, the petition filed by Ramesh on behalf of the minors u/s 47 of the CPC was not maintainable.
At this juncture, the learned Counsel for petitioner would pray that his client would take appropriate steps to get himself appointed as guardian
and proceed with the matter afresh. It is open for him to do the needful as per law. With the above observations, this civil Revision Petition is
disposed of. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.