Ram filed a suit for recovery of certain sum against Raj who was a minor. Later, an ex-parte decree was passed against Raj. In execution of decree, the house of Raj was sold to Prabhu and sale certificate was also issued

In suits by or against minors, Order XXXII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 lays down the mandatory procedure for proper representation of minors through a guardian ad litem. Where the defendant is a minor, the Court, upon being satisfied of such fact, shall appoint a proper person to be the guardian for the suit on behalf of the minor [Order 32, Rule 3(1)]. Such appointment may be made on the application of the minor or by the plaintiff [Order 32, Rule 3(2)]. A person appointed as guardian for the suit shall, unless removed or deceased, continue to represent the minor throughout all proceedings arising out of the suit, including appellate, revisional, and execution proceedings [Order 32, Rule 3(5)]. All applications and orders concerning a minor in a suit must be made through the minor's next friend or guardian. Any orders made without such representation can be set aside if it is shown that the pleader knew or should have known about the minor's status. This provision safeguards their legal rights and ensures proper representation in Court. (Order 32, Rule 5) In this case, the decree was passed in contravention of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Raj was a minor at the time when the suit was instituted as well as when the house was sold in execution of the decree. It is well-settled that a decree passed against a minor without the appointment of a guardian is null and void, being passed without jurisdiction. As there was no guardian ad litem appointed for Raj, the decree stands vitiated and unenforceable in law. Consequently, no valid title could pass to Prabhu under a void decree. Therefore, Prabhu's claim for possession of the house is not legally tenable.