ORDER :

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

RP 667/2016 : This review is pointing out an ad litem irregularity. The review petitioner was a minor in the proceedings before the District Court and became major before the disposal of the case before the District Court. The review petitioner was shown as a minor in the appeal under review as well. The records of the District Court show that there was no application for appointment of a guardian for the minor before the District Court nor had the Court appointed a guardian. The point that arises in this review is whether the decree passed against a minor without the minor being represented by a guardian, duly appointed by a Court, renders the decree as nullity. So also the dismissal of the appeal, overlooking the nullity of the decree passed by the District Court warrants a review at the instance of the minor.

2. The point of law arises in the context of Order 32 Rule 3 and Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

3. Brief facts are; one Thomman held properties in and around Ernakulam. He died intestate. Xavier and Antony were his sons. Mary was his only daughter. Xavier died on 12/1/1979. Xavier's wife Tresa Xavier filed O.S. No.112/84 for p