Ziley v. Sukhpal Etc
!" #$%$ &'(() *$+ , ((( $ $ & - .%( /0123 +/$&42 &" 2 -% ((( %3 &" & %
' 56 ( / 67/ 6
67/ 6 9(
#
"
!
" % &
'
'
( # ,
"
!
! + ../0001'
"
2 #
# #
!
#
.4 .0 *00,
" !
&
#
#
#
5 6! (
:9;;6( )
"
"
6
'
5 " 8 90:
% 5
!
6!
;
! " ! #8 .9,3 &+ ,33
"
#< !
"
) =
!
"
" 5
"
!
#
! # ! 2"#
5
6
# ,
% !
=
>
?@
A
C
'
>After going through the case law cited before me, I have come to the conclusion that each case must be settled on its own facts and it would not be appropriate to lay down any general rule. The crux of the matter is that it has to be seen whether the minor was effectively represented in the litigation. If he was, then the noncompliance with the provisions of Order 32, Rule 3, which are mandatory, would not render the decision void. But if the noncompliance has caused prejudice to the minor or he was not effectively represented, the decision will be void, i.e., the minor can either ignore it or avoid it. This approach is in consonance with justice because where the matter has been properly contested and no prejudice has been caused to the minor, it will be sheer injustice to the other side to re-open the matter again.
Litigation is a very expensive affair and the general principle of law is that it should not be encouraged. In this view of the matter, so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, there can be no two opinions that the minors were effectively represented and no prejudice has been caused to them. Their interests were effectively safeguarded by their brothers, who were co-defendants with them and whose interests were identical. They contested the suit on all conceivable grounds. The learned counsel for the minors has been unable to bring to our notice any evidence or any contention which would enable us to hold that a wrong decree was obtained."
$
!
#
#
!
(
6!
$#%# 6!
$## & '
$#%#& '( A
$
+ .400001'
!
#
+ */0001'
" !
$
# #
! !
#
!
5
67/ 6
(() 6 !1 E
+" E