JUDGMENT G. R. UDHWANI, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 10th December, 2008 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge (S.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar below Exh.124 in Regular Civil Suit No.419 of 1996, whereby the application of the petitioner, who was minor original defendant No.7 for allowing him to defend his case on attaining the age of majority, was rejected as belated, hearing of the suit having already commenced and evidence of defendants was being recorded; as also for want of power under Order-32, Rule-12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC"). 2. There were in all 35 defendants, amongst whom, original contesting defendant Nos.31, 32, 33, 34 & 35 have chosen to oppose this petition by filing an affidavit-in-reply in response to the notice/Rule issued by this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions :- 3.1 That the Trial Court ought to have allowed the minor to pursue the suit on attaining majority otherwise, the principle of natural justice stood violated. 3.2 Under Order-32, Rule-3(1) of CPC, the Trial Court was duty bound to appoint the guardian of minor-defendant and such appointment was terminable by retirement, removal or death; albeit no guardian came to be appointed; had it been appointed, on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner would have got an opportunity to represent his own case. Such right does not get dispensed with merely because the Trial Court failed to discharge its obligations under Order-32, Rule-3(1) of CPC. 3.3 Alternatively, while relying upon the decision rendered in Ambrish Kumar Tiwari v. Sita Ram Jhalani and Ors. ( AIR 1998 RAJ 21 ), it was contended that in absence of appointment of guardian of the minor under Order-32, Rule-3(5) of CPC, the minor's interest was not properly represented and therefore, decree if any, would be against a person not a party to suit; thus without jurisdiction & therefore, defendant No.7 be allowed to defend the suit. 4. ( AIR 1998 RAJ 21 ), it was contended that in absence of appointment of guardian of the minor under Order-32, Rule-3(5) of CPC, the minor's interest was not properly represented and therefore, decree if any, would be against a person not a party to suit; thus without jurisdiction & therefore, defendant No.7 be allowed to defend the suit. 4. Respondent Nos.31, 32, 33, 34 & 35, through their constituted Power of Attorney, have raised the following contentions :- 4.1 That the minor-defendant No.7 attained age of majority on 15.06.2002 and application was made by him on 18.01.2008 and thus, object of the 7th defendant was not bona-fide, but the said defendant, who supports the case of the plaintiff, has resorted to delaying tactics by preferring such application. 4.2 That the suit was filed in the year 1996 and reply by the petitioner, through his mother being a natural guardian, was filed. Thereafter, they have not examined any witnesses, and as soon as the evidence of the plaintiff was over, the evidence of contesting defendants i.e. defendant Nos.18 to 20, is being adduced and thus, delaying tactic is resorted to by preferring frivolous application. It is contended that in that view of the matter, if the petitioner files a fresh written statement, the nature of suit will change. 4.3 That the properties were already sold to the respondents and mother of the original defendant No.7 represented the minor's interest in the sale deed itself; that he was co-owner along with other persons including his mother, none of whom objected to the sale and therefore, now at belated stage, such attempt by defendant No.7 to delay the proceedings, may be discouraged. 4.4 It was contended that since the suit by defendant No.7 to challenge the sale deed would have been time barred, his defending the suit at a belated stage would result into maintaining of a time barred suit. 4.5 That though no relief is prayed against defendant No.7, unnecessary application was filed to delay the matter. 5. To appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to examine relevant provisions of the CPC. As per Section-26 and Order-4 Rule-l of CPC, a suit is to be instituted/ commenced by presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed. 5. To appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to examine relevant provisions of the CPC. As per Section-26 and Order-4 Rule-l of CPC, a suit is to be instituted/ commenced by presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed. Order-1, Rule-3 contemplates person who may be joined as defendant in the suit and Rule-5 thereof clarifies that it shall not be necessary that every defendant shall be liable to a claim in a suit against him. Rule-9 thereof prohibits the suit being dismissed for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties. 5.1 Order-7, Rule-l (d) obliges the plaintiff to make a statement as to minority of the plaintiff or defendant as the case may be. 5.2 Order- 1, Rule- 10(2) empowers the Court, inter alia, to strike out or add a party to the suit. 6. Under Order-6. Rule-17, an amendment necessary for determination of real controversy in the suit can be ordered by the Court. Thus on compliance with Section-26, Order-4 Rule-l, Order-l Rule-3 and Order-7 Rule-l (d) [if necessary], the plaint can be said to have been properly presented. 7. Once the statement as to minority of the defendant is made as required by 21 Order-7 Rule-l(d), it is bounden duty of the Court to proceed to make appointment of guardian of the minor defendant under Order-32, Rule-3 of CPC and In absence of such appointment, decree, if any, would be against a person not a party & thus without jurisdiction. In view of Order-1, Rule-5, it is not necessary that a relief should be sought against all the defendants & therefore, notwithstanding absence of relief against defendant No.7 who is joint owner of the suit property, no decree can be passed in his absence. 8. Provisions aforesaid being procedural in nature, in the event of their non-compliance, corrective measures can be taken. The plaint, in absence of proper representation of minor, cannot be said to have been instituted in terms of the above provisions. It is not in dispute that no orders, under Order-32, Rule-3, were passed by the Court and the parties assumed that interest of the minors defendant was represented validly by his mother who was his natural guardian. The plaint, in absence of proper representation of minor, cannot be said to have been instituted in terms of the above provisions. It is not in dispute that no orders, under Order-32, Rule-3, were passed by the Court and the parties assumed that interest of the minors defendant was represented validly by his mother who was his natural guardian. In view of Order-7, Rule-l(d), before guardian is appointed, two aspects are required to be verified on affidavit; (i) that the proposed guardian has no interest in the matter in controversy in the suit adverse to that of the minor and (ii) that he is a fit person to be so appointed. These facts were never ascertained. Neither of the parties to the suit brought to the notice of the Court the above defect and interest of the minor was continued to be represented by his mother who was also one of the parties to the suit. 9. In Ambrish Kumar Tiwari (Supra), the Rajasthan High Court, In Paragraph-l 6, held as under :- "16. Every party is entitled, ex debito juslitiae to have the case against him presented in an intelligible form, so that he may not be embarrassed in meeting it. The Court under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 16 at any stage of the suit can direct the parties to amend any matter in the pleading which may tend to prejudice or embarrass fair trial or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. In the case on hand the defendant petitioner when he was minor was not properly represented and was sued through one Rameshwar Lal Advocate. The learned Court below also did not invoke the legal provisions for appointing his guardian. Therefore the defendant is within his right when he seeks direction from the Court for striking the name of Rameshwar Lal Advocate as his guardian. Nothing is more embarrassing to a defendant than to face such situation on attaining majority. " 10. It is a settled law that the procedure is a handmade of law and the rules, contemplating the procedure, cannot be so interpreted as to defeat the ends of justice having so read, Order32, Rule-12 cannot be interpreted as excluding the minor-defendant's right to represent the suit upon his attaining majority. 11. " 10. It is a settled law that the procedure is a handmade of law and the rules, contemplating the procedure, cannot be so interpreted as to defeat the ends of justice having so read, Order32, Rule-12 cannot be interpreted as excluding the minor-defendant's right to represent the suit upon his attaining majority. 11. That apart, under Order-6 Rule-17 and Order-l Rule-l0, it was permissible to amend plaint to enable defendant No.7 to represent his case on his own, on attaining majority. These provisions empower the Court to amend the plaint and add or delete a party. These provisions are meant to be exercised as and when situation demands. As discussed above, in absence of appointment of a guardian for defendant No.7, he was virtually not a party to the suit and being co-owner/joint-owner, his presence was necessary in the suit. Therefore, this was a fit case where Court could have exercised the powers under Order-1, Rule -10(2) or Order-6 Rule-17 of CPC by ordering addition of a party and/or suitably amending the plaint. 12. Effectively, after attaining age of majority by defendant No.7, the hearing of the suit i.e. leading of the evidence started in the year 2007. The defendant No.7, who was adult by that time, was also aware of the fact that his mother had filed a written statement. He had acquaintance. with all the proceedings undertaken in the suit so far and therefore, while defendant No.7 can be allowed to represent the suit on his own, it would not be permissible for him to recycle the whole procedure which has been undertaken in the suit so far as rightly contended by respondents. 13. In above view of the matter, this petition must succeed to the above extent. It is, therefore, allowed. Defendant No.7 in Civil Suit No.419 of 1996 is permitted to defend the suit subject to the observations made in Paragraph-12 above. The suit shall proceed from the stage as on date. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 14. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1996, it shall be expeditiously heard subject to other old matters. If there are no other old matters, the suit shall be decided within a period of 1 year from today. Writ shall be issued to the Trial Court forthwith. Rule is made absolute