The provisions of Order 32, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code are directory, not mandatory, and that non-compliance with the provisions does not render the proceedings against a minor void unless prejudice is caused.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal was REFERRED TO to a larger Bench by Pritam Singh Safeer, J. In the referring order the learned Judge also posed the following question, which he considered to be of general importance and likely to arise in many cases:-

"whether a trial court has the jurisdiction to proceed against a minor defendant/defendants without compliance with Order 32, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code ? The non-compliance will to what extent injure the decree that may be passed against the minor defendant/defendants and in case it is indivisible qua the other co-defendants ?".

( 2 ) RAFIQUIDDIN Siddiqui is owner of house No. 3403, situate at Jangli Kuan, Kucha Pandit, Delhi-6. The first floor of the said house (which has hereinafter been REFERRED TO to as "the premises") was let out by the owner to Naziruddin, son of Lal Mohd. at a rent of Rs. 8. 50 per month. On taking the premises on rent Naziruddin and his wife, Mst. Bashiran, started living in it. Mst. Bashiran, however, died issueless in the year 1957 or the year 1958. After his wife s death Naziruddin allowed one Mohd. Yasin and his family members to reside with him in the premises.

( 3 ) IN May 1962 Siddiqui applied for eviction of Naziruddin from the premises on the ground that the tenant had sub-let or otherwise parted with possession of the premises to Mhd. Yasin. "the application was dismissed on March 20, 1963 by an Additional Controller. The appeal filed by the landlord against the order of the Additional Controller as well remained unsuccessful. While dismissing the appeal the Rent Control Tribunal held by its order dated July 23, 1963 that the alleged sub-letting had not been proved as "mohd. Yasin, his wife and children were residing in these premises along with the tenant as relations and they did not pay any rent to the tenant". Thereafter a fresh application was made by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were bona-fide required by him for occupation as a residence for himself and for purposes of re-construction. While that application was still pending before an Additional Controller Naziruddin died on November 6, 1966.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to Siddiqui his tenant having died without leaving any heirs the licence granted by the tenant in favour of Mohd. Yasin, also came to be automatically revoked with the death of the licensor. He, therefore, wanted Mohd. Yasin and the latter s family members to vacate the premises. When that was not done a suit for permanent injunction was instituted by him but from the other side a preliminary objection was taken that the suit should have been for possession and not for mere injunction. Shri H. S. Bakshi, Subordinate Judge, upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the suit on March 1, 1967 by holding that the remedy of the plaintiff was to file a suit for possession. Siddiqui filed an appeal against the decree of Shri Bakshi. That appeal was disposed of on August 9, 1967 by the Additional Subordinate Judge by allowing Siddiqui to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action.

( 5 ) ON August 9, 1968 the suit for psssession of the premises was insituted by Siddiqui. In the suit besides Mohd. Yasin and his son Mohd. Yusuf the other family members of Mohd. Yasin and the wife and children of Mohd. Yusuf were as well impleaded as defendants 1 to 11. Regarding defendants 3 to II it was stated in the plaint that they had no independent status and were only living in the premises as dependants of defendants I and 2 and that any order passed against defendants I and 2 would be binding on the other defendants as well, but to avoid any future complications or difficulties they had also been impleaded as defendants 3 to 11.

( 6 ) IN the title of the suit instituted on August 9, 1968 Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Yasuf were shown as defendants I and 2 respectively. The wife, three daughters and two sons of Mohd. Yasin were impleaded as defendants 3,5,6,7,8