Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.38 seconds)Section 99 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Krishna Behari Lall vs Kedar Nath Ojha And Ors. on 19 February, 1954
12. It is interesting to observe that while dealing with Krishna Behari's case. AIR 1954 Pat 349 which decision is more in line with the facts of the present case, the learned Judges observed as follows:-
Ramchandar Singh And Anr. vs B. Gopi Krishna Dass And Ors. on 22 February, 1957
4. Ramchandar Singh v. Gopi Krishna, AIR 1957 Pat 260;
Ramachandra Pd. Singh And Ors. vs Rampunit Singh And Ors. on 17 April, 1967
In Ramchandra Pd. Singh's case AIR 1968 Pat 12, the facts are that there was no notice to the proposed guardian. Moreover, the natural guardian was also ignored. There was no other party who could have effectively protected the interest of the minor. Therefore, this decision is of no assistance so far as the present case is concerned.
Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954
In Inder Pal Singh's case AIR 1951 All 823, the question was not that the appointment of the guardian was not in accordance with the provisions of Order 32, Rule 3, but the guardian did not properly represent the minor in the suit.
Rangammal vs Minor Appasami And Ors. on 4 February, 1972
In Rangammal's case AIR 1973 Mad 12, the observations of Banerjee, J., in Nirmal Chandra Ray's case AIR 1965 Cal 562(supra) were approved. These observations go contrary to the contention advanced by the learned counsel for which this authority has been cited.
Dwarika Halwai vs Sitla Prasad And Ors. on 18 January, 1940
"The case law is thus quite clear that a decree against a minor is void ab initio and a nullity, if it is passed in a suit in which no guardian of the minor is appointed or the appointment of the guardian is invalid or the validly appointed guardian does not properly represent the minor. The proposition of law laid down by the lower Court is, therefore, incorrect."
Nirmal Chandra Ray And Ors. vs Khandu Ghose And Ors. on 16 December, 1963
In Rangammal's case AIR 1973 Mad 12, the observations of Banerjee, J., in Nirmal Chandra Ray's case AIR 1965 Cal 562(supra) were approved. These observations go contrary to the contention advanced by the learned counsel for which this authority has been cited.
Sangram Singh vs Election Tribunal, Kotah,Bhurey Lal ... on 22 March, 1955
13. I may, with due respect to the learned Judges, mention that the observations of the Supreme Court in Sangram Singh's case AIR 1955 SC 425 as to the interpretation to be placed on procedural law were totally ignored as well as the rule that it is not in every case that non-compliance with the provisions of Order 32, Rule 3 makes a decree null and void. The object of Order 32 is to see that no decrees are passed against minors where they are not effectively represented. I have deliberately used the words 'effectively represented' in contradistinction to the 'representation' contemplated by Order 32, Rule 3. If a minor is represented by a guardian ad-litem and the interests of the other major defendants are identical with him and those defendants are effectively prosecuting the litigation it can hardly be said that a minor is not effectively represented. Too much insistence on technical provisions of a procedural law can at times lead to absurd results and cause injustice to parties. It is only where a Court comes to the conclusion that the minor was not effectively represented and thus he was in fact not a party to the proceedings that the result envisaged by the learned Judges would necessarily follow. But where the minor is effectively represented, though technically not in line with the provisions of Order 32, Rule 3, the said result will necessarily not follow.