AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.—It is difficult to conceive of a case where the formalities of the law have been more neglected than in the present instance.
The suit was brought against a minor. No guardian ad litem was appointed of that minor, yet the case was allowed to proceed to decree. No attempt was made to serve the minor with a summons, but some attempt apparently was made to effect service of notice upon the lady who had been appointed guardian by the Court under Act VIII of 1890. Section 53 of that Act, amending the Civil Procedure Code, expressly requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem, whether or not a guardian is appointed under Act VIII of 1890, although that section gives precedence to the appointment of a guardian appointed under the- provisions of that Act.
It is perfectly obvious that the decree appealed against is bad and must be set aside, and the case must go back to the lower Court in order that the minor may be represented in accordance with the law, and then the case must be retried. Until the minor is represented in accordance with law no proceedings had can be binding upon him.