IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 315"' DAY 0? AUGUST, 20m.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N:-.' V'E'i'iEJ§3"QPA§.T]§V:'CKTWSAVTHH
WRIT PETITION f\£O.:2535A1'4//_2TC1_A.(3 (GTi$'(i'§TC'APvC) T'
BETWEEN:
1. Binoy M Shah,
Age 34 years, . I _
Residing at Amratve£..._2T5/1...
T.ChowcEai_aE's:«AF<vo_ad,§:A 5'
Lower Paléa,ce.'0'r;:riafds1,:._ _. _ I
Bangaiciire -_..-"*56'O"--wQO3';~i.'j'.-- A
2. Nis!*:'it"'Sh..xaA:hL
Aged 35 yVea-Ts~.._» "
3. Pranew
Pjati!:i_Qnei;S 3V'.are residing at
30.4.3, Coconiitv'-'x*v'enue Road,
'~._'Ban_QaE0.r4e«--.s 560 003.
A. ~ ' ....PETITIONERS
(8)? 'M75.' Law, Advs.)
AND:
. t .
._--....................._ .
Pushpa Mailya, Major,
Kum. Nikita, Minor,
(represented herein by her
mother and legal guardian,
Mrs. Pushpa Mailya, who is the
Respondent No.1 herein)
Both respondents are residing at
No.30, Santosh Apartments,
Fiat No.4, :1″ Cross,
Margosa Avenue Road,
Malieshwaram,
Bangaiore –~ 560 003. 1
” : ._
This petition is filed u’rid:er.,_Artic’ies ‘2.26.ain§d””‘2i2′”7 of ‘ 0
the Constitution of India prayin”g.._to quash–t_he”ord;er dated
20.1.2010 passed by the Court–of.’i£X~)3..ddl. City-.Ci.v’il Judge,
Bangalore on IA-V in (3…,.é”\’~yNo.7088/05,.,y’id,e Annexure –~F.
This petition comingion p.~eiin;ir.a;–y hearing this
day, the Courtr:.iad_e the foi’io,wi_ng§f–__’ –
Thevv..oia.intiffs petitioners. Respondents are
they;l’efe,nda.nts.,_V_V”‘:Suii: is for relief of deciaration and
“possession. Suit was contested by filing a
A”coiri_i_nlo’n:”‘ixrlritter’i” statement. Defendant it acted as the
guatdian” or defendant No.2. However, defendant 1 filed
Lf;..A..,,,4 “under 0 32 R :1 cpc to discharge her as the
.._’g_da~rd’Aian of 2″” defendant. The plaintiffs fiied objections
istiating that the application is nothing but a device adopted
i/,.
3
by the 13′ defendant to deiay disposai of the suit. It was
also pointed out that a common written statement has
already been fiied and the suit has proceeded.
2. The Trial Court noticing the rival
and taking into consideration R 11 of O 32
the Court cannot force the 15′ deferidanlt to éfiithvlé’.
guardian of 2″” defendant. HVowevaer__, ln_oticinlgV_-the.
the father of 2″” defendant”i£i:é’i~ng am can thell
guardian in case he shows wil’l’i’ngn’ess,…1.A.léiwaisyéaliowed.
Qefendant 1 was dischargr_e’d”€ro’nn V”gu’a’r_dianship of 2″”
defendant an_dr~rro’ti.ce {to “§.2′.”l’ defendant was
issuedivto find ness in the matter. Said order
has been”questioried’.i_n’ writ petition.
Heardthe. learned counsel and perused the
»record._
of O 32 CPC is regarding retirement,
remova”lr.:or death of a guardian in the suit. Sub—-rule (1)
V’ arovides that where a guardian for the suit desires to retire
or does not do his duty or where other sufficient grounds
fr
are made for non appearance, the Court may permit such
guardian to retire or may remove him and may make such
order as to costs as it thinks fit. Sub rule (2) irhvpyose-s_V_a
duty on the Court to appoint a new guardian_.;i:n”‘p!’a:ce’:
the one who was permitted to retire or dies,—ajs., the «case v ‘V
may be.
5. A perusal of the’iproxgisionmrouid’make–.it. clear r L’
that the Court cannot compely_a.n’y..person.to« coynttriue as a
guardian of the minor d”efendant{.,ir:
6. In_vie:w,of the part of the
15′ defe’nd’anttfo guard’E’aVVn of the 2″” defendant —
minor, the «Court ,.no other option than to aiiow
LA. 4_._ In passing “the-._impVugned order, the Trial Court has
‘”‘~._noti._cOnji.mi’tted any””p–r’ocedurai impropriety nor irrationality
f.:_f;o:’f”tinterference under Articie 227 of the
cogsgmiyoiryaii India.
.. 7′.» ” The writ petition is devoid of merit and hence,
‘stvands rejected. ‘G
/.3