JUDGMENT : This writ petition arises out of the orders passed by the court below during the execution proceedings. It is an extremely old matter pertaining to the year 2004. The decree holder i.e. respondent no. 3 before this Court who had a decree in his favour has not been able to execute the same as there is an interim order dated 28.05.2004 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff (respondent no. 3 before this Court), in which there were two main defendants i.e. Abdul Majid and Mohammad Ishaq i.e. defendant nos. 1 and 2 and defendant nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Rajendra Nath and Virendra Nath were the proforma defendants. The case of the plaintiff was that the property was purchased by him and defendant nos. 3 and 4 from its erstwhile owner Sri Hari Chand vide sale deed dated 08.11.1971. Since the defendant nos. 3 and 4 were in the Indian Army and were deployed towards the border in the year 1971, the property was occupied by defendant nos. 1 and 2 taking advantage of absence of defendant nos. 3 and 4. Consequently, the defendant (respondent no. 3 before this Court) filed a civil suit before the Court of Munsif, Roorkee praying for a decree of possession. 3. During the pendency of the suit, out of the two main contesting defendants, defendant no. 2 passed away on 27.02.1982. The plaintiff thereafter moved an application for substitution under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (from hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). Substitution application moved by the plaintiff was allowed and the widow of deceased Mohd. Ishaq, namely, Smt. Mudi and the minor children through her mother were substituted as defendant nos. 2/1 to 2/7. Again during the pendency of the suit, defendant no. 1 also passed away on 22.12.1985. According to the petitioners, the legal heirs of defendant no. 1 were not substituted by the plaintiff. 4. The suit was decreed on 02.08.1989 against defendant no. 1 and defendant nos. 2/1 to 2/7 and the decree was put to execution. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Majeed (petitioners before this Court) filed an objection under Section 47 of CPC, against the execution. The application was dismissed by the court below vide its order dated 28.01.1998. The suit was decreed on 02.08.1989 against defendant no. 1 and defendant nos. 2/1 to 2/7 and the decree was put to execution. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Majeed (petitioners before this Court) filed an objection under Section 47 of CPC, against the execution. The application was dismissed by the court below vide its order dated 28.01.1998. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.1998, the petitioners filed a revision before the learned First Additional District Judge, Haridwar, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2004. Aggrieved by these two orders i.e. order dated 28.01.1998 and 12.05.2004, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court. 5. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that at that time when the ex-parte decree was granted in favour of the plaintiff (i.e. respondent no.3 before this Court), both the defendant nos. 1 and 2 had passed away and whereas the legal heirs of defendant no. 2 were substituted, the legal heirs of defendant no. 1 i.e. the present petitioners remained un-substituted. There is also no representation, as provided under the law, to the legal heirs and minor children of defendant no. 2 who had passed away even earlier to defendant no. 1 i.e. on 27.02.1982, inasmuch as no separate orders were passed by the trial court under Order XXXII Rule 3 of CPC appointing a guardian. In other words, they too were unrepresented before the court below, which has resulted in an ex-parte decree against the defendants. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, would argue that as far as substitution of legal heirs of defendant no. 2 is concerned, immediately after the death of defendant no. 2 a substitution application was filed by the plaintiff, which was allowed and defendant nos. 2/1 to 2/7 were substituted. 7. The substitution application has been perused. The substitution application was made on behalf of the plaintiff for substituting all the legal heirs of defendant no. 2 i.e. the widow as well as the minor children of the deceased Mohd. Ishaq, in which the minor children were represented through their legal guardian and mother i.e. widow of the deceased. 8. Under these circumstances, there was absolutely no occasion to pass any separate order under Order XXXII Rule 3 of CPC, as is being argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. Ishaq, in which the minor children were represented through their legal guardian and mother i.e. widow of the deceased. 8. Under these circumstances, there was absolutely no occasion to pass any separate order under Order XXXII Rule 3 of CPC, as is being argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. Order XXXII Rule 3 of CPC reads as under:- “Order XXXII Suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind 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. (4) No order shall be made on any application under this rule except upon notice to any guardian of the minor appointed or declared by an authority competent in that behalf, or, where there is no such guardian, upon notice to the father or where there is no father, to the mother, or where there is no father or mother, to other natural guardian, of the minor, or, where there is no father, mother or other natural guardian, to the person in whose care the minor is, and after hearing any objection which may be urged on behalf of any person served with notice under this sub-rule. (4A) The Court may, in any case, if it thinks fit, issue notice under sub-rule (4) to the minor also. (5) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) to be guardian for the suit for a minor shall, unless his appointment is terminated by retirement or removal or death, continue as such throughout all proceedings arising out of the suit including proceedings in any Appellate or Revisional Court and any proceedings in the execution of a decree.” 10. (5) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) to be guardian for the suit for a minor shall, unless his appointment is terminated by retirement or removal or death, continue as such throughout all proceedings arising out of the suit including proceedings in any Appellate or Revisional Court and any proceedings in the execution of a decree.” 10. Indeed, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of other High Courts in order to substantiate his argument that the decree against the minor without a minor being represented is in fact nullity, void and not merely voidable. 11. There is absolutely no quarrel with the legal submissions made by the petitioners, however, on facts, the matter at hand is different. Here it is nobody’s case that at the time of institution of the suit, the defendants were minor. Therefore, it is not a case where the suit was filed against a minor without appointment of a guardian. It is true that on the death of defendant no. 2, the interest of the minor children was to be taken care of under the law by their mother who was the legal guardian and mother of the minor children of defendant no. 2. 12. The basic purpose of Order XXXII Rule 3 of CPC is that no decree should be passed prejudicial to the interest of the minor. It is for this reason that the minor has to be represented. In the present case since they were well represented by their mother, there was no occasion for passing a separate order for appointment of a guardian under Order XXXII Rule 3 of CPC, as is being submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In any case, it is not the legal heirs of defendant no. 2, who have raised this objection. This objection is being raised by the legal heirs of defendant no. 1. 13. As far as the substitution of legal heirs of defendant no. 1 are concerned, there is a clear dispute as to the death of defendant no. 1 on 22.12.1985, as the records of the court below, where the matter was proceeding, it shows that defendant no. This objection is being raised by the legal heirs of defendant no. 1. 13. As far as the substitution of legal heirs of defendant no. 1 are concerned, there is a clear dispute as to the death of defendant no. 1 on 22.12.1985, as the records of the court below, where the matter was proceeding, it shows that defendant no. 1 was representing his case on dates which were subsequent to 22.12.1985, such as, 19.02.1986, 13.01.1988 and 05.07.1989, inasmuch as on 13.01.1988 and 05.07.1989 an application was filed by defendant no. 1. Although while moving the application under Section 47 of CPC, the petitioners had filed a death certificate before the courts below, but the courts below relied upon the court documents, which according to them were the conclusive evidence. Consequently, no interference is liable to be made on this aspect as well. 14. In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds no fault with the order dated 28.01.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar as well as the order dated 12.05.2004 passed by the revisional court. 15. The writ petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 28.05.2004 is hereby vacated.