##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

C.R.P.No.102 of 2025

22^ND December, 2025

Between:

Ummai Vasavi and another.

… Petitioners

AND

Nyalakanti Latha @ Vani and another.

…Respondents

ORDER

Heard Smt. Tippavajhala Sairamya Praneetha,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri G.

Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel appearing for

respondents.

2. The Civil Revision petition is filed by the

petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved by the order

dated 12.12.2024 in I.A.No.700 of 2024 in O.S.No.59 of

2017 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge at Bhainsa,

Nirmal District, wherein, the petition filed under

Order I Rule 10(2) r/w section 151 of C.P.C to implead the

##PAGE2##

RY,J

Crp_102_2025

2

respondent No.2/proposed defendant No.3 to the main suit

has been allowed with permission to carry out

consequential amendments to the plaint.

3. The main suit was filed by respondent No.1 herein

seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule

property. The plaint consists of Item No.1: Sy.No.320/అ

admeasuring 02 Acers 24 guntas; Item No.2: Sy.No.41/ఉ

admeasuring 02 Acres 20 guntas, both lands are situated

at Basar Village, Basar Mandal, Nirmal District. In said

suit, the proposed defendant No.3 was also a coparcener

but was not shown as a party and therefore, the

Interlocutory Application under revision was filed to array

her as defendant No.3 in the main suit and said petition

was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is

preferred.

4. The reason for challenging the impugned order is that

the respondent No.1/plaintiff failed to file a petition under

Order XXXII Rule 3 of C.P.C to appoint a guardian to the

minor who is arrayed as a defendant No.3. It is submitted

that Order XXXII Rule 3 of CPC and sub-rules thereunder

##PAGE3##

RY,J

Crp_102_2025

3

are mandatory provisions which have to be complied before

filing of the petition under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC as the

party to be impleaded is a minor.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that

the guardian who is representing the minor is none other

than mother of the minor child and therefore, no such

petition is necessary.

6. Learned counsel for revision petitioners relied upon

the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Ram Chandra Arya v. Man Singh, reported in AIR

1968 Supreme Court 954, wherein it is held that if a

decree is passed against a minor without appointment of a

guardian, the decree is a nullity and is void, and not

merely voidable. The point to be noted that, currently the

suit is at the stage of arguments, no decree has been

passed and while filing the petition to implead the minor,

natural mother of the minor child is shown as guardian.

Further, reliance is passed upon judgment in the case of

Kasturibai and others v. Anguri Chaudhary reported in

(2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 225, wherein it is held that

##PAGE4##

RY,J

Crp_102_2025

4

a Court is empowered to appoint a guardian in the event a

person is adjudged to be of unsound mind. In the instant

case, the party sought to be impleaded is a minor, but not

of unsound mind. In any case, according to the learned

counsel for the revision petitioners, the enquiry for

appointment of a minor is similar to that of an enquiry to

be conducted for appointment of a guardian to the person

of unsound mind.

7. In the instant case, the petition under Order 10 Rule

2 of C.P.C. has been allowed, before a guardian was

appointed to the minor. As such, the learned counsel for

revision petitioners contends that said order has to be set

aside, that an enquiry has to be conducted under Order

XXXII Rule 3 of CPC and only after the guardian is

appointed for the minor child, the petition under Order 1

Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. has to be filed. While making such a

contention, the revision petitioners also concede that the

proposed minor/defendant No.3 is a coparcener and

therefore, she is a necessary party to the partition suit.

While, both the parties concede that the minor is a

##PAGE5##

RY,J

Crp_102_2025

5

necessary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document