Ex-Parte Decree Against Minor Not Represented By A Duly Appointed Guardian A Nullity : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld a judgment of the Madras High Court which held that an ex-parte decree passed against a minor not represented by a guardian who is duly appointed is a nullity.A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V Ramasubramanian was considering an appeal filed against the High Court judgment, which had set aside the ex-parte decree passed against a minor on the. A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V Ramasubramanian was considering an appeal filed against the High Court judgment, which had set aside the ex-parte decree passed against a minor on the ground that he was not represented by a guardian appointed in terms of procedure contemplated under Order XXXII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Challenging the High Court order, Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu raised three primary arguments : that the High Court ought not to have set aside an ex­parte decree, in a revision petition arising out of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963; that the Court was not even entitled to invoke equity in favour of the respondents who were grossly negligent, first in defending the suit,next in defending the executing proceedings and then in seeking to set aside the ex­parte decree after nearly a year of seeking to set aside the ex­parte order passed in the Execution Petition; and that it was not even one of the grounds raised or points argued by the respondents­ herein in their revision petition before the High Court either that the procedure prescribed under Order XXXII, Rule3 of the Code was not followed or that a grave prejudice or injustice has been caused to the defendant/minor, on account of the failure,if any, on the part of the trial Court. The Supreme Court also refused to accept the argument that the High Court could not have set aside the decree invoking Article 227 while hearing a revision application under Section 115 CPC.