Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.— 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by Fahmeed Raja & Ors. for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash order dated 16.11.2011 passed by Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and order dated 5.8.2003 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Utraula, District-Balrampur. 3. The dispute involved in the writ petition is related to Plot No.s 364 area 0.55 decimal, 347 area 0.79 decimal, 349 Ka area 0.15 decimal and 349 Kha area 0.14 decimal situated in Village-Deoria, Pargana & Tehsil-Utraula, District-Balrampur. One suit no.204 of 1986, under section-229B/209 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act, 1950 (later on referred as the Act) was filed by one Sardar Hussain son of Shahid Hussain along with 34 other plaintiffs including vendors of petitioners against Akaram Hussain son of Aqbal Hussain & 16 others defendants along with Gaon Sabha Amiya Deoria and State of U.P. This suit was decreed by Sub Divisional Magistrate- Utraula, then District-Gonda vide its order dated 31.10.86. Ajhar Abbas has filed an appeal against impugned order dated 31.10.1986 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate- Utraula which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Faizabad region Faizabad by order dated 26.4.1993. A revision was preferred before Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh Allahabad Revision No. 49/1993-94 in which Sabbar Abbas was also revisionist and at that time it was alleged that his age was 21 years looking into entry of Khatauni 1384-1389F Sabbar Abbas was wrongly shown as minor and had filed the revision though her natural guardian mother Noorjahan. This revision was dismissed by Board of Revenue on 13.7.2000 for want of prosecution. After a lapse of period about 16 years an application for recall of order dated 31.10.1986 was filed by Sarvar Hussain & Ors. on 27.8.2002 along with application Under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act supported with an affidavit. This application for recall was hotly contested and this recall application was allowed on 5.8.2003. Feeling aggrieved a Revision No. 268, 269 & 270 were filed before Additional Commissioner (Administration) Devi Patan Mandal Gonda, which was allowed vide order dated 26.12.2005 and order dated 5.8.2003 was quashed. Sabbar Abbas filed Revision No.42 of 2005-06 before Board of Revenue which allowed the revision by its order dated 16.11.2011 which resulted in filing of this writ petition. 4. Sabbar Abbas filed Revision No.42 of 2005-06 before Board of Revenue which allowed the revision by its order dated 16.11.2011 which resulted in filing of this writ petition. 4. Sabbar Abbas filed the counter affidavit alleging that at the time of filing of the Suit No. 204/1986 under Section 229B/209 of the Act, he was minor. Respondent nos. 9 to 16 were deliberately arrayed as defendant who have no concern with the disputed land. They filed compromise in favour of plaintiffs. The actual owner of the land in dispute were never served any notice and plaintiffs have with connivance of defendant no.1 obtained ex parte decree dated 31.10.1986. When he came to know of the ex parte order passed, he filed restoration application for setting aside order dated 31.10.1986 along with application for condonation of delay which was duly supported by an affidavit. That restoration application was allowed and the case was restored for proper adjudication on merit. Against this order dated 5.8.2003 Sardar Husain has preferred a revision which was allowed vide order dated 26.12.2005. A revision against that order was filed by Sabbar Husain before the Board of Revenue. 5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.11.2011 reveals that Learned Member Judicial has discussed in detail the facts and irregularity found in conducting the case under section 229-B/209 of the Act Suit No. 204/1986. It has been mentioned that at the time of filing of the suit under Section 229-B/ 209 of the Act, the applicants moving recall application was minor and there was no proper compliance order XXXII Rule 3 C.P.C. 6. I have also gone through the record. The plaint is Annexure 4 and Sultan Hussain, Sabbar Abbas, Kaisher Abbas were shown to be minors son of Aqbal Hussain and they were represented though their mother Smt. Noorjahan. The judgment passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula Annexure 5 reveals that notices were issued to all the defendants through ordinary post or registered post but notices could not be served so notices were published in the newspaper. This clearly goes to show that there was no personal service on defendants. Defendant nos. 9 to 16 have filed compromise and defendant nos.1 to 8 were absent. It is to be noted that defendant nos. 6,7 and 8 were minors. It is also to be noted that in the plaint no age of the minors have been mentioned. This clearly goes to show that there was no personal service on defendants. Defendant nos. 9 to 16 have filed compromise and defendant nos.1 to 8 were absent. It is to be noted that defendant nos. 6,7 and 8 were minors. It is also to be noted that in the plaint no age of the minors have been mentioned. 7. Order XXXII C.P.C. deals with suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind, Order XXXII, Rule 3 is very crucial and is reproduced below "Order XXXII Rule 3. Guardian for the suit to be appointed by Court for minor defendant.- (1) Where the defendant is a minor, the Court, on being satisfied of the fact of his minority, shall appoint a proper person to be guardian for the suit for such minor. 2. An order for the appointment of a guardian for the suit may be obtained upon application in the name and on behalf of the minor or by the plaintiff. 3. Such application shall be supported by an affidavit verifying the fact that the proposed guardian has no interest in the matters in controversy in the suit adverse to that of the minor and that he is a fit person to be so appointed guardian of the minor appointed or declared by an authority competent in that behalf, or the father or the other natural guardian of the minor, or where there is no father or other natural guardian the persons in whose care the minor is. (1-5-1957) 4. The Court shall cause notice of such application to be served upon the minor as also upon all the probable guardians named in the application and such other person as it may deem fit calling upon them to file objections, if any, to the appointment of the proposed or any other probable guardian as guardian of the minor. In case any person himself desires to be appointed guardian of the minor instead of the proposed guardian, he shall furnish an affidavit verifying the fact that he has no interest in the matters in controversy in the suit adverse to that of the minor and that he is a fit person to be appointed. In case any person himself desires to be appointed guardian of the minor instead of the proposed guardian, he shall furnish an affidavit verifying the fact that he has no interest in the matters in controversy in the suit adverse to that of the minor and that he is a fit person to be appointed. The Court shall after hearing the objections, if any, and considering the respective claims of all persons desirous of being appointed guardian including the proposed guardian, appoint such person as guardian of the minor as it may deem fit: Provided that if the minor is under twelve years of age no such notice shall be issued to him."(1-6-1957)." 8. A perusal of the plaint and the judgment of the suit no. 209/86 under Section 229B/2009 of the Act reveals that provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 3 (1),(2) and (3) have not been complied. There was no service even on the guardian of minors. 9. In the case of Khursheed Ahmad & Anrs. v. Gulzar Ahmad & Ors. AIR 2006 Allahabad page 280 this Court has held that it is a mandatory requirement of the procedure for the Court to be cautious to protect the interest of a minor who have been made a party to the suit. Therefore, the Court cannot dispense with the mandatory procedural requirement. 10. In the instant case there was no such application for appointment of guardian as has been mentioned under Order XXXII, Rule 3 Sub-Rule (2) in the case Suit No.209/86 under Section 229B/209 of the Act. It is also clear that the Trial Court has not appointed the guardian of minor defendants. In view of this, the total trial of suit no.209/86 under Section 229B/209 of the Act was vitiated. 11. Due to this procedural irregularity on part of the Court, the delay in filing of the recall application is immaterial. Court is empowered to correct the mistake committed by itself as and when it comes to its knowledge suo moto or through application by aggrieved party. 12. From the reasons recorded above. There is no illegality and irregularity in the impugned order passed by Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. 13. Consequential M/S writ is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. _____________