The provisions of Order 32 C. P. C. govern the procedure to be followed when a minor plaintiff or applicant attains majority, and there is no specific provision for issuing notice to respondents who have become major during the pendency of an appeal.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of the Board of Revenue dated 29-10-1982 contained in Annexure 1 attached with the writ petition.

( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessary details it appears that the petitioners-appellants applied to the court for issuing notice to some of the respondents in the appeal on the allegations that they had become major during the pendency of the second appeal before the Board of Revenue, hence according to the rule of natural justice they should get notice of the pendency of this appeal and after serving notice to them the appeal be heard. The prayer of the petitioner-appellants was refused by the learned member Board of Revenue through his order dated 29-10-1982. as is evident from annexure 1 attached with the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29-10-1982 the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants has contended before me that the principle of natural justice requires that a person should be heard before any adverse order against him is passed. In such a circumstance if the appellants succeed the respondents who have become major during the pendency of the appeal will not be bound by the decision and the decision can be set at naught in no time hence it was necessary for the court to issue notice to the respondents who had become major during the pendency of the appeal. The impugned order is arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.

( 4 ) DURING the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to cite a direct case in support of his contention and he has frankly admitted that under the provisions of order 32 C. P. C. there is no specific provision under which the application for issue of notice to the respondents who had become major during the pendency of the second appeal could be issued, but he emphasised that on the principles of natural justice it was incumbent upon the court to issue notice to the respondents who had become major during the pendency of the second appeal. He has placed reliance upon the ruling mentioned in the impugned judgment as well as the ruling reported in AIR 1970 SC 150 A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments to the effect that the moment a minor respondent becomes major the provisions of Order 32 C. P. C. would cease to apply and the general principles of natural justice would be attracted docs not appear to me as a correct contention. In this connection it is proper to mention the ruling reported in AIR 1949 All 169 Sheomangal Singh v. Birendra Bahadur Singh wherein a Division Bench of this Court has made the following observation:-". . . . . . Order 32, Civil Procedure Code provides for the course to be followed in the case of a minor plaintiff or applicant attaining majority and Sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 lays down that no order discharging a next friend and permitting a minor plaintiff to proceed in his own name shall be made without notice to the next friend. The question is whether it is necessary or not to give such notice to the next friend before he is discharged in a case in which the defendant (in the present case the respondent) has attained majority. Order 32 is silent up on this point, and we have had some difficulty in deciding whether it is open to a court or not, to discharge the next friend of a minor defendant or a minor respondent when he has attained majority without giving notice to such next friend. It appears, however, that there is an important difference between a "minor plaintiff or a minor appellant" and a "minor defendant or a minor respondent" and it may be that the reason why no provision has been made in the Code in respect of a minor defendant or a minor respondent attaining majority during the pendency of the suit is, as pointed out by chitaley and Rao in th