The High Court · 2025

2. Ummai Gangamma, wrfe of Laxman Rao, aged. 75 years, Basar firlandal, Nirmal. ...RespondenUPetitioner/Plai ntiff ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendant lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the further proceedings O.S.No.59 of 2017 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa. Counsel for the Petitioner :SMT. TIPPAVAJHALA SAIRAMYA PRANEETHA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI G VASANTHA RAYUDU The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA C.R.P.No.102 of 2o25 22ND Decembet,2025 Between: Umma.i Vasavi and anothe r . Nyalakanti Latha (, Vani iu-td another AND ORDER: l)t'titioners ... Resl)ondents Heard Smt. Tippavajhala Sairamya Praneetha, learned counsel appcaring for the petitioners and Sri G Vasantha Rayudlr. Iearned counsel appearing for responden ts.

2. The Civil Revision petition is filed b.y the petitioners/ delendern L Nos.l and 2 aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2024 in l.A.No.7OO of 2024 in O.S.No.59 of 2017 passed by the learned Junior Civil .ludge at Bhainsa, Nirmal District, u'herein, the petition liled under Order I Rule 10(2) r/s, section 151 of C.P.C to implead the 2 RY,,J Ctp L02_2025 resporldent No.2/proposed delendant No.3 to the main suit has been allou'ed i.r'ith permission to carn' out consequenrial amcndments to the plaint.

3. 'l'he maitr surt rvas iiled b,v-' rcspondent No. I herein seeking partitioll a1lc1 separate posscssion of suit schedule propert.\,. The plaint consists of Item No.1: Sy.No.32Oleo admeasuring 02 Accrs 24 guntas; Item No.2: Sy.No.41/& admeasuring 02 Acrcs 20 gur-rtas, both lands are situated at Basar Village, Basar Mandal, Nirmal District. In said suit, the proposed delendant No.3 was also a coparcener but !1 as not shou,n as a part-v and therefore, the Intcrlocutorl Application undcr revision was filed to arra-v her as defendant No.3 in the main suit and said petition was allor.l,ed. Aggrie ved bl the same, the present C.R.P. is prelerrcd.

4. The reason lor challenging the impugned order is that the respondent No.1 /plaintiff lailed to lile a petition under Order XXXII Rule 3 of C.P.C to appoint a guardian to the minor r,r,ho is arraved as a defendant No.3. It is submitted that Order XXXII Rr-rle 3 of CPC and sub-rules thereunder 3 RY,] Ct p _tO 2 _2O 25 are mandatory pro\risions u,hich have to be complied before filing of the petition under Order I Rule l0(2) of CPC as the part\ lo be impleaded is a minor.

5. Learned counsel lor the respondents submitted that the guardian '"',,ho is representing the minor is none other than mother of the minor child and therefore, no such petition is necessan,.

6. Learned counsel for revision petitioners relicd upon the judgment ol the Honble Supreme Court ol India in the case of Ram Chandra Arya v. Man Singh, reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 954. wherein it is held that il a decree is passed against a minor u.ithout appointment ol 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 chitd is shor.r,n 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 )t *--- I 4 RY,.J Ctp _lO2_2025 a Court is ernpor.r,ered to appoint a guardian in the event a person is adj udged to be of unsound mind. In the instant case, the p:r|tr sought to be impleaded is a minor, but not of unsound mind. [n anv case, according to the learned counsel for the revisior.r petitior-rers, the enquiry for appointment Of a minor is sirnilar lo Lhat ol an errquiry to be corrducted lor appointment of a guardian to the person of unsouncl mind.

7. In the rnstant case, the petition under (Jrder 10 Rule 2 ol C. P.C. has been allo."ved, belore a guardian was appointed to the minor. As such, the learned counsel for revisior-r petitioners contends that said order has to be set aside, that an enquiry has to be conducted under Order XXXII Rulc 3 of CPC and onlv 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 revisron petitioners also concede that the proposed mir-ror / defendant No.3 is a coparcener and therefore, shc is a necessary part-\' to the partition suit. While, both the parties concede that the minor is a i I 5 RY,I Crp_102_2025 necessary party, lhe disagreement IS onlv about the process to be follorved for bringing the rninor on record.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Cor-rrl is ol the considered opinion that non liling of a petition for appointment of a guardian, either prior to, or along u,ith petitron Order I Rule l0(2) is a curable defect. The respondent No. l/plaintitt or the mother of the minor, as per C.P.C are entitled to file an application for appointment of guardian to the minor

9. [n the instant case, the revrsion petitioner No. 'l . lr,h o is mother ol the revision petitioner No.2 (minor). represented by her learned counsel has contended that she cannot be compelled to act as a guardian to her minor child. The Civil Revrsion Petition is to be disposed ol with a direction to the trial Court, to conduct necessary enquin, for appointing a guardian to the minor.

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the learned Trial Court to conduct enquiry and to appoint a guardian to the minor delendant No.3 br. fo11or.r,ing the rules under Order XXXII Rule 3 ol C.p.C, t.r RY,] Ctp _lO2_2025 since the natural mothcr, i.e.. rer.isior-r pctitioner No.1 IS not q'illing to represent her daughter appoirrt any other competent person rvho is ri'illing to represent the minor child, as long as the said person does not have conflict of interest witl-r the rnirlor's interest. There shall be no order as to co sts. Miscellaneous petrtions, if anr'. pcnding in this petition, shall stand closed SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa 2. One CC to SMT. TIPPAVAJHALA SAIRAMYA PRANEETHA, Advocate loPUCl

3. One CC to SRI G VASANTHA RAYUDU, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL Y\- HIGH COURT DATED:221121202s ORDER CRP.No.102 ot 2025 I i) (EH1 c o(J 3 * 0 2 ii.8 21ii * iJATC DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS ..oe@ 5$