Honble Umeshwar Pandey, J.—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 his 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 filing written statement would come only when the guardian of the minor defendant had been appointed and that stage had not reached in the suit.

4. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is evident that the defendant No.3 was a minor and the first and prime duty of the court was the appointment of guardian of such minor and thereafter only further proceeding in the suit was to take place. The provisions of Order XXXII are mandatory and requirement of the same cannot be dispensed with. The provisions of sub-rules (1) to (4) of Order XXXII Rule 3, C.P.C. as amended by the U. P. State are relevant and reproduced as below :

"(1) Where the defendant is a minor, the Court, on being satisfied of the fact of his minority, shall appoint a proper person to be guardian for the suit for such minor.

(2) An order for the appointment of a guardian for the suit may be obtained upon application in the name and on behalf of the minor or by the plaintiff.

(3) Such application shall be supported by an affidavit verifying the fact that the proposed guardian has no interest in the matters in controversy in the suit adverse to that of the minor and that he is a fit person to be so appointed and shall also contain the names and addresses of all probable guardians including any guardian of the minor appointed or declared by an authority competent in that behalf, or the father or the other natural guardian of the minor, or where there is no father or other natural guardian the person in whose care the minor is.”

(4) The Court shall cause notice of such application to be served upon the minor as also upon all the probable guardians named in the application and such other person as it may deem fit calling upon them to file objections, if any, to the appointment of the proposed or any other probable guardian as guardian of the minor. In case any person himself desires to be appointed guardian of the minor instead of the proposed guardian, he shall furnish an affidavit verifying the fact that he has no interest in the matters in controversy in the suit adverse to that of the minor and that he is a fit person to be so appointed.

The Court shall after hearing the objections, if any, considering the respective claims of all persons, desirous of being appointed guardian including the proposed guardian, appoint such person as guardian of the minor as it may deem fit :

Provided that if the minor is under twelve years of age no such notice shall be issued to him.”

5. From the aforesaid provision it is more than obvious that it is a mandatory requirement of the procedure for the Court to be overcautious to protect the interest of a minor who has been made a party to the suit. Therefore, the Court cannot dispense with the mandatory procedural requirement and when the petition for such appointment of guardian of minor defendant No. 3 was moved before it by the plaintiff as well a