( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners.

( 2 ) THIS petition challenges the order dated 9. 1. 2006 passed by the revisional court in a suit of petitioner where respondent No. 3 was shown as a minor defendant.

( 3 ) SUMMONS had been issued to the defendants for filing written statement and also fixing a date for framing issues. In pursuance to those summons, the defendants, who were major, had appeared and the father of the minor defendant had moved an application for is appointment as his guardian. The court without disposing of that petition or the application of the plaintiff-petitioner made in that behalf for appointment of guardian under Order XXXII Rule 3 c. P. C. , has further proceeded in the suit and the orders were passed rejecting defendants application for admitting the written statement. This order was passed by the trial court on the ground that more than ninety days had passed since the appearance of the defendants, beyond which no written statement could be taken on record. The revisional court set aside this order holding that the requirement of filling written statement would come only when the guardian of the minor defendant had been appointed and that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document