Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing Nirmal Chandra Ray And Ors. vs Khandu Ghose And Ors. on 16 December, 1963

Johri And Ors. vs Mahila Draupti Alias Dropadi And Ors. on 25 October, 1990

6. The first contention of Shri Jain is that the suit was not maintainable, as no order was obtained for appointment of next friend or guardian under Order 32, Rule 4-A (2), CPC, nor before proceeding with the case any consent of the natural guardian, i.e., Dropadi, was obtained for appointment of next friend or guardian under Order 32, Rule 4-A, nor any notice under Order 32, Rule 4-A(4), CPC, was issued, as added by State Amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure; there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Court to pass a decree in absence of proper representation. Reliance, was placed on Smt. Har Saran Kaur v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1966 Punjab 224 and Nirmal Chandra v. Khandu Ghosh, AIR 1965 Cal 562. The contention has no merit. Under. Order 32, Rule t, CPC, when a suit is instituted on behalf of a minor or a lunatic by a person, such person is called "next friend." As the minor or lunatic remains the real plaintiff, in the proper sense of the term "next friend" only represents the interest of such a plaintiff and acts for him. Under Order 32, Rule 4, any person who is of sound mind may act as next friend of a minor or as a guardian for the suit, provided that the interest of such person is not adverse to that of the minor and that he is not, in the case of a next friend, adefendant or in the case of a guardian for the suit, a plaintiff. Therefore, any person who is of sound mind and is not a minor and his interest is not adverse to that of the minor or lunatic plaintiff and is not an opposite party in the suit can act as next friend.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ramachandra Pd. Singh And Ors. vs Rampunit Singh And Ors. on 17 April, 1967

9. The view taken by the Division Bench in AIR 1957 Pat 260 has been followed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Nirmal Chandra v. Khandu Ghose, AIR 1965 Cal 562. That second appeal arose out of a suit brought by the respondents who were minors, for a declaration that the ex parte decree for rent obtained by the appellants against them and their co-sharers was not binding upon the respondents inasmuch as the respondents were, in that suit, impleaded as represented not by their mother who was their natural guardian, but by their brother, who was defendant No. 12 in the suit. The question of law which arose was whether the minors were properly represented by their brother who was not their natural guardian, so as to make the decree in the suit binding upon the minors. The Munsif relied upon the doctrine of 'effective' or 'substantial' representation and answered this question in the affirmative and dismissed the suit for declaration, but his decision was reversed by the lower appellate court holding that there was no representation under the law, by the brother, and in this view, the suit brought by the respondents was decreed. The defendants filed an appeal and the case was referred to a Division Bench for disposal. The question raised was examined from a two-fold approach, namely, from the point of view of the Code of Civil Procedure and of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The reason was that while the general law relating to the representation of a minor defendant was provided in Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a special procedure was laid down in Section 148 (h) of the Bengal Tenancy Act which had to be complied with by a landlord who, instead of being contended with a money decree for his arrears of rent under the general law, was anxious to have a rent decree, with all its larger benefits under Chapter XIV of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Mushtaq Ahmad Mashki vs Mohd. Shafi Bhat And Ors. on 5 October, 1982

13. This brings me to tlhe decisions relied upon by Mr S. L. Kaul. The first to be noticed is Nirmal Chandra Ray v. Khandu Ghose. AIR 1965 Cal 562. In this case the decree against the minor was challenged on the ground that no formal application was made to appoint his guardian, nor was any formal order passed by the trial court in that behalf-Only the brother of the minor was shown in the plaint to represent him as his guardian, even though his father was alive and competent to act as his guardian. The Division Bench held that Sub-rules (3) & (4) of Rule 3 being manada-tory in character, their infraction vitiated the decree, even if no prejudice was shown to have occurred to the minor on that account.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - A S Anand - Full Document

Chater Bhuj Goel vs Gurpreet Singh on 5 August, 1983

21. The propositions laid in Nirmal Chandra Ray's case (supra) were taken notice of in Amrik Singh v. Karnail Singh, AIR 1974 Punj & Har 315(FB) and it was held that the ratio thereof is that it is only where a minor is not at all represented, in fact or in law, that the decision rendered against him will be void. But where here is substantial representation of the minor the decision will not become void, unless the minor has suffered prejudice by non-compliance of the provisions of O. 32, R. 3. It was further held :--
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Gurpreet Singh vs Chatterbhuj Goel on 29 April, 1991

11. Mr. Bindra has relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported as Nirmal Chandra v. Khandu Ghose, AIR 1965 Cal 562, which, in our opinin is similar on facts to the present one. In his case the minors filed a suit seeking a declaration that an ex parte rent decree which had been obtained against them was not binding on them as they had not been properly represented in that rent matter. It was argued by the other side that no prejudice had been caused to the minors as they had been represented by their brother.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 15 - H S Bedi - Full Document

Manoj & Ors vs Ravinder Yadav And Anr on 29 August, 2023

xxx xxx xxx "It is a settled principle of law that a decree against a minor defendant without appointment of guardian ad-litem is void and inoperative in law, but in a case where the minor is effectively represented in a suit by a guardian although not formally appointed and where such minor suffered no prejudice on account of such informality, the absence of formal order of appointment of guardian is not fatal to the suit (Nirmal Vs. Khandu AIR 1965 Cal.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M P Arora - Full Document
1   2 Next