K.P. Natarajan & Anr. v. Muthalammal & Ors.
Background
The petitioners had obtained an ex-parte decree for specific performance of a sale agreement in 2015 after the defendants, including a minor, failed to contest the suit. Years later, the defendants sought to set aside this decree, citing a huge delay of 862 days, arguing the decree was a nullity because the minor defendant had never been properly represented by a court-appointed guardian as required by law. The trial court refused to condone the delay, but the Madras High Court, invoking its supervisory powers, went further and set aside the ex-parte decree itself after finding that the minor had genuinely not been given a validly appointed guardian, subject to the defendants paying Rs. 2,50,000 to the decree-holders.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that a decree passed against a minor without properly appointing a guardian as required by Order XXXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as elaborated by the special, more rigorous Madras High Court amendment to this rule) can be treated as a nullity, and a High Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can set aside such a decree even while technically only hearing a limitation/delay application, since it can call for and examine the original trial court records. The Court rejected arguments that the defendants' own negligence in defending the suit should bar this relief, holding that while parties may be negligent, "the Court cannot" ignore a fundamental procedural failure affecting a minor's interests. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
Courts owe a special duty to ensure minors are properly represented through a validly appointed guardian in any lawsuit; a decree obtained without following this procedure can be struck down as void even years later and even if the minor's side was otherwise careless in pursuing their case.