2006 Supreme(All) 1566
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.
RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
KM.PURRIMA SHARMA - Respondents
Civil Revision 174 Of 2001
Decided On : 05/23/2006
Amitabh Trivedi, P.K.Jain, Sanjay Kumar, Shashi Nandan, SIDDHARTH, V.D.OJHA
The duty to safeguard the interest of minors and the requirement for express leave of the Court for compromise on behalf of a minor are central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Recall of Suit - Order 23, Order 32 - [Order 23 Rule 1, Order 23 Rule 2, Order 32 Rule 7] - The court recalled the order and restored the suit based on the failure to follow mandatory provisions of Order 23 and Order 32 C. P. C. The court emphasized the duty to safeguard the interest of minors and the requirement for express leave of the Court for compromise on behalf of a minor.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for permanent injunction and cancellation of a sale deed on behalf of minors. After the death of the mother, the suit was decreed exparte, then dismissed at the request of the plaintiff's advocate. An application was later filed to recall the dismissal order and restore the suit, citing failure to follow mandatory provisions of Order 23 and Order 32 C. P. C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal order did not fulfill the requirements of Order 32 Rule 7, C. P. C. and was against the interest of the minors. It also noted the duty to safeguard the interest of minors and the requirement for express leave of the Court for compromise on behalf of a minor.
Issues: Failure to follow mandatory provisions of Order 23 and Order 32 C. P. C., safeguarding the interest of minors, and the validity of the recall application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty to safeguard the interest of minors and the requirement for express leave of the Court for compromise on behalf of a minor. It also highlighted the mandatory nature of the provisions of Order 23 and Order 32 C. P. C.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, emphasizing that no case for interference under Section 115 C. P. C. was made out.
( 2 ) THE aforesaid application was opposed by filing objections by the present applicant on the allegation that one of the minors namely Ravi Kant Sharma has become major and he has not come forward for recalling the order dated 25th of August, 1998, dismissing the suit. . The statement of Sri ashok Kumar, Advocate, was recorded while passing the order dt. 25th of August, 1998 and the court rightly dismissed the suit for want of prosecution by the order dt. 25th of august, 1998.
( 3 ) THE trial court by the order under revision recalled the order dt. 25th of August. 1998 and restored the suit to its original number on the findings that Shri Ashok kumar advocate failed to watch the interest of the minors and the mandatory provisions of Order 23 and Order 34 C. P. C. were not followed by the court while passing the order dt. 25th of August, 1998 and that the order dt. 25th of August, 1998 being in the teeth of the mandatory provisions of Order 23 and Order 32, the order dt. 25th of August, 1998 being contrary to law, cannot be allowed to stand. It also rejected the objection by the present applicant that the application is barred by time onthe ground that no period of limitation for filing an application under Section 151 C. P. C. is prescribed and the order should be passed after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties of a matter, feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present revision has been filed by the defendant of the aforesaid suit.
( 4 ) SRI Pramod Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that ravi Kant Sharma, who has become major is not coming forward to recall the order dated 25th of August, 1998 and that Km. Purnima Sharma has also become major during the pendenc