Manpreet Singh vs Surjit Kaur alias Sukhbir Kaur and others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 8111-C-II of 2012 :

Allowed as prayed for. C.M. No. 8112-C-II of 2012 :

Application is allowed and Annexures P-1 and P-3 to P-7 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case :

Defendant No. 3 Manpreet Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib and order dated 22.03.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib.

Defendant No. 3 was minor when the suit was filed in the trial court on 10.08.1990. Accordingly, he was sued through his mother Kamal Kaur as gaurdian. At the fag end of the trial of the suit, defendant No. 3 moved application Annexure P-3 alleging that he had since become major, and therefore, he be allowed to defend the suit as major by discharging his guardian and by allowing him to file written statement and to examine witnesses and also by cross-examination of witnesses of the plaintiff. Learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 22.03.2010 (Annexure P-1), dismissed the aforesaid application observing that the suit itself was being heard and disposed of finally and interest of the minor was sufficiently watched by his guardian and also vide separate judgment of even date, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court.

Plaintiff Surjit Kaur - respondent No. 1 herein filed first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court. In first appeal also, by filing application, defendant No. 3 sought permission to declare him as major and to allow him to contest the appeal independently and also to allow him to appear as his own witness. The said application has been dismissed by the lower appellate court vide impugned order Annexure P-2. Both these orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 are under challenge in this revision petition.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner, having attained the age of majority during pendency of the suit, was entitled to contest the suit himself by discharging his guardian and should have been allowed to do so, and therefore, the impugned orders of the courts below are unsustainable. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Kaliammal vs. G.N. Ramaswami Goundar reported as AIR 1957 Mad 629 and also on a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Vanimisatti Anil Kumar and Others Vs. Jayavarapu Krishna Murty and Others, .

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein.

Defendant No. 3-petitioner, in his application Annexure P-3, did not level any allegations against his mother and guardian. It was not alleged that petitioner''s mother and guardian committed any negligence or other misconduct in defending the suit on behalf of defendant No. 3-petitioner. The only relevant averment in application Annexure P-3, as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application, is reproduced hereunder :

Moreover, the defendant/applicant is not satisfied completely with the pursuing of case by his guardian.

A bare perusal of the aforesaid averment reveals that no negligence of the guardian in contesting suit on behalf of defendant No. 3 has been alleged in the application. If defendant No. 3-petitioner was not satisfied completely with the pursuing of the case by his guardian, it does not furnish him a ground to re-open the case for de novo trial from the stage of filing of fresh written statement and leading evidence and cross-examining the witnesses of other party. The reason for non-satisfaction of defendant No. 3-petitioner has also not been mentioned in the application. It is also not alleged that mother of defendant No. 3 had any interest adverse to that of defendant No. 3. Consequently, defendant No. 3 could at best proceed to contest the suit from the stage, at which it was going on, when application Annexure P-3 was filed and defendant No. 3 had no right to set the clock back to the initial stage of the suit instituted almost 20 years ago. Judgments in the cases of Kaliammal (supra) and Vanimisatti Anil Kumar (supra) have no applicability to the facts of the instant case because in those cases, gross negligence of next friend or guardian was asserted. In the instant case, however, no negligence, much less gross negligence, of the guardian has even been alleged by the petitioner in his application Annexure P-3.

It may also be mentioned that defendant No. 3 had attained the age of majority in July 2006, but he appears to have filed the application Annexure P-3 in or about March 2010 i.e. more than three years after being major and when the suit was at the final stage of arguments.

Lower appellate court has already permitted defendant No. 3 to contest the appeal himself as major. No other relief could be granted to defendant No. 3 by the courts below. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned orders of the courts below do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.