Judgment 1. The Revision petitioner is the defendant No.6 in O.S.No.69 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The suit is filed by the respondent herein for partition of the suit schedule properties and for separate possession of 1/3rd share. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died and the Revision petitioner was brought on record as legal representative of the 1st defendant. As he was a minor at that time he was represented by his mother and natural guardian and a written statement was filed by her contesting the suit. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 16-12-1992. Long thereafter in the year 1998, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.32 of 1998 in O.S.No.69 of 1989 under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the decree dated 16-12-1992, contending that the decree dated 16-12-1992 without taking steps to declare him as a major and without notice to him was unsustainable under law. It was pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the said application that even as per the age mentioned in the plaint he attained majority by the date of the decree. 2. The trial court dismissed I.A.No.32 of 1998 by order dated 8-4-2005 and C.M.A. No.10 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, filed by the Revision petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 27-9-2007. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. This is a case where the minor defendant claims to have attained majority during the pendency of the suit. It is also true that the suit was decreed without discharging the guardian. The question that arises for consideration is whether the decree passed in the suit without discharging the guardian and without notice to such defendant, who attained majority pending the suit, is a nullity. 5. It is to be noticed that there is no specific provision under Order 32 of C.P.C. with regard to a minor defendant who attained majority during the pendency of the suit. Rule 12 of Order 32 of C.P.C. deals only with the course to be followed by minor plaintiff on attaining majority. 5. It is to be noticed that there is no specific provision under Order 32 of C.P.C. with regard to a minor defendant who attained majority during the pendency of the suit. Rule 12 of Order 32 of C.P.C. deals only with the course to be followed by minor plaintiff on attaining majority. As per Order 32 Rule 12 (2) of CPC where a minor plaintiff on attaining majority elects to proceed with the suit, he shall apply for an order discharging the next friend and for leave to proceed in his own name. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 further provides that no order on such application shall be made without notice to the next friend. Similarly Rule 13 of Order 32 of CPC deals with a situation where a minor co-plaintiff on attaining majority desires to repudiate the suit. The above provisions make it clear that a plaintiff on becoming a major can elect to go no with or put an end to the litigation. It is apparent that the defendant has no such choice and the suit must proceed against him notwithstanding the fact that he attained majority. In the circumstances, if a minor defendant who attained majority did not choose to come on record and contest the suit himself, he must be deemed to have elected to abide by the representation of the guardian and the judgment and decree eventually passed in the suit would be binding upon him. 6. Hence the mere fact that the suit was decreed without taking steps to declare the Revision petitioner as a major and without discharging his guardian is not a valid ground to set aside the decree. Therefore, the Courts below cannot be held to have committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.