The appointment of a Court guardian must comply with the provisions of C.P.C, and proper defense on the side of a minor is essential.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Case is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 08.11.2019 made in I.A.No.289 of 2019 in O.S.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court Cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu.)

1. The second defendant in a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction is the revision petitioner.

2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff had filed O.S.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Orathanadu for the relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction as against the revenue authorities for mutation of revenue records in favour of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed as prayed for. As against the same, the second defendant has filed A.S.No.22 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Pattukottai.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to set aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court and remitted the matter back to the trial Court with liberty to both the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence.

4. After remand, the second defendant had filed I.A.No.289 of 2019 under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C seeking permission of the Court to file an additional written statement. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 08.11.2019. As against the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the second defendant.

5. According to the revision petitioner/second defendant, the second defendant was a minor and he was represented by his mother and guardian Mariammal. Since the mother had not evinced any interest, the Court had appointed an Advocate as a Court guardian and he had filed a written statement. Based upon the said written statement and the submissions made by the said advocate guardian, the trial Court found that the plaintiff has established his case and decreed the suit. He had further contended that the First Appellate Court in Paragraph No.13 has found that though the minor had attained majority, it was not brought to the notice of the trial Court and the trial was proceeded by the Court guardian. Only in the first appeal, the defendant had chosen to file Exhibits B1 to B16 documents

6. Based upon the said reason, the First Appellate Court had set aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court and had remitted the matter back to the trial Court with liberty to the second defendant to mark these documents before the trial Court. The trial Court had further granted liberty to both the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that after remand, if the documents Exhibits B1 to B16 have to be marked, there should be a pleadings to the said effect. That apart, the written statement originally filed by the Court guardian is bereft of any material, since he could not get instruction either from the minor or from his mother who was not evincing any interest in defending the suit.

8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the original written statement will clearly indicate that it is nothing but denial of all the averments in the plaint without putting forward the case of the second defendant. Therefore, unless the second defendant was permitted to file an additional written statement, the order of remand cannot be complied with.

9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of remand which permitted the second defendant to mark Exhibits B1 to B16 has not been challenged by the plaintiff. When the second defendant was a minor, the suit has been disposed of on the basis of the appointment of Court guardian who was not aware of the facts of the case. Therefore, the trial Court had erroneously dismissed the application for filing of additional written statement taking a technical view that the order of remand is only for the purpose of finding whether the sale deed dated 13.06.2002 is valid or not. Hence, h