The absence of a formal order appointing a guardian for the minors in a suit does not render the decree against them a nullity if they were sufficiently represented in the proceedings of the suit and no prejudice was caused to them.

1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1987 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1 Udaipur whereby the plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed.

2. The plaintiff respondent Laxmilal had to bring the suit in the peculiar circumstances.

3. The facts leading to the present appeal may briefly be stated as follows. The plaintiff respondent had obtained a decree for eviction of the shop situated in Mochivada, Udaipur on 11.5.1971 from the Court of Munsif Udaipur. Against that an appeal was preferred. The learned Civil Judge, modified the decree in respect of the sum Rs. 612/-. The learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff landlord was not entitle to recover a sum of Rs. 612/- from the defendant tenant which have already been paid. The decree for eviction was maintained. He levied the execution of the decree for eviction on 17.1.1973 and a warrant under Order 21, Rule 35 CPC dated 10.3.1973 was issued. The warrant of possession was executed, the plaintiff decree-holder in that suit moved an application for issuance of fresh warrant for delivery of possession as the judgment debtor forcibly occupied the shop but that application was dismissed by the learned Munsif by his order dated 26.4.1975. The decree holder went in appeal and the learned Additional Civil Judge, by his order dated 6.10.1976 set aside the order of the Munsif and directed him to issue a fresh warrant for delivery of possession in accordance with law. The judgment debtor tenant preferred an appeal before this Court. This Court allowed the appeal of the judgment-debtor and it was held that once the decree has been executed and delivery of possession has been effected and if the judgment debtor had reentered into the property, then the decree-holder's remedy is to file a fresh suit and it was found that actual possession of the shop was delivered in execution of the warrant of possession. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge and order of the Munsif was restored.

4. The plaintiff Laxmilal thereafter filed the present suit against Sobhalal the tenant, his wife Smt. Motibai, his two sons Hiralal and Laxminarayan and daughters Anandibai and Sushilabai. It was alleged by the plaintiff that in execution of the warrant of possession interference was made by the defendants in execution. Door of the shop was broken and the intervening wall between the two portions was also demolished and the goods of the defendants were put out of the shop. Even after so much of action in execution, the defendants No. 2 Smt. Motibai along with her daughters entered into this vacant and partially demolished shop. In such circumstances Admin made an endoresment regarding delivery of possession and it was announced by him that possession of the shop has been delivered to the plaintiff decree holder. It was alleged that the defendants are tres-passers in the shop and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession. The suit was resisted by the defendants and they submitted their written statement denying the plaintiffs title over the shop in question. Necessary issues were framed at the trial. The plaintiff Laxmilal examined himself as PW 1 and from the defendants side, Motibai appeared as DW 1.

5. It may be stated that during the pendency of the suit, Sobhalal defendant No. 1 had expired and an application was moved on 8.11.1985 to bring the other legal representatives on record. It was stated in the application that five legal representatives; the widow, the two sons and two daughters are already on record. Besides these heirs, the deceased Sobhalal had left two more sons namely Ranjit Lal and Shyamu and two daughters Sobhabai and Laxmibai. Ranjitlal, Shyamu and Sobhabai are minors and are living under the guardianship of their mother in Mohalla Mochivada. Laxmibai had become major and she is married. Notice of this application was issued under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC. The notice was personally served on