Minors must be legally represented in court, adhering to procedural regulations for guardianship, or compromises are deemed invalid.

1. Challenge in this petition is to the award of National Lok Adalat, passed in Civil Suit No.38 - A / 2016 on 08.07.2016.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were minor, who were arrayed as defendants in the suit No.38 - A / 2016 and represented by the guardian Sarita Patel, who is respondent No.2 in this petition. Award of Lok Adalat was passed on the basis of the compromise between the respondent No.1 as plaintiff and respondent No.2 as defendant on her own behalf as well as on behalf of the petitioners, who were minor defendants. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has overlooked the interest and welfare of the minors, which is provided under S.27 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 . The Presiding Officer of National Lok Adalat has also overlooked the interest of the petitioners by passing the impugned award, therefore, the award passed is illegal and arbitrary. Relying on the judgment of Privy Council in the matter of Mohori Bibee and Another v. Dharmodas Ghose , reported in (1903) ILR 30 Cal 539 : AIR 1903 PRIVY COUNCIL 72, it is submitted that the minor is incompetent to contract, therefore, any money paid to him is not recoverable and any agreement on his behalf is not enforceable. Hence, the award of Lok Adalat is liable to be set aside.

3. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that under S.21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, the award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be challenged in any Court in appeal as well as under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered on 22.02.2019 in W.P.(227) 914 of 2018 ((2019) 3 CG LJ 14), it is submitted that setting - aside of any award of Lok Adalat would amount to frustrate the purpose and intention of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 , therefore, this petition cannot be entertained and allowed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. The question that mainly arises, in this case, is whether the petitioners were legally represented in the civil suit and their interest were legally protected by the guardian mentioned in the plaint in accordance with law.

6. When a suit is filed against any minor defendants, in that case, such suit has to be filed only as per the law of Code of Civil Procedure provides. O.32, R.3 of C.P.C. provides as under: -
' 3. Guardian for the suit to be appointed by Court for minor defendant - (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.'

7. Therefore, it is a necessity that when the defendant is a minor, his guardian has to be appointed by the Court and the provisions under O.32, R.3 is mandatory provision, which has to be strictly followed.

8. On perusal of the record of the Civil Suit No.38 - A / 2016, it is found that suit was presented on 26.07.2016 and then notices were issued to the defendants. The petitioners, who are arrayed as defendant Nos.2 and 3 are shown to be represented by guardian Smt. Sarita Patel. Defendants gave appearance through their guardian, before the Court and then written statements was filed and subsequent to which during the pendency of trial, the guardian of the petitioners on their behalf has entered into a compromise and then compromise decree was passed by the Lok Adalat.

9. There is nowhere mentioned in the whole proceeding of the trial Court in civil suit until it was compromised that any application was filed by the petitioners praying for appointment of guardian on behalf of the minor d