JUDGMENT A.V.RAVINDRA BABU,J. - Challenging the judgment, dtd. 24/4/2017, in Original Suit No.321 of 2011, on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, "the learned Additional District Judge"), the appellant by name Gudapati Venkata Seshu Supriya, Daughter of Murali Krishna, aged about 10 years as on the date of Appeal, who was the minor defendant in the above said Suit, filed the present Appeal. 2. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, according to the averments in the plaint, is that the plaintiff filed the Suit to declare that the sale deed, dtd. 19/7/2011, bearing registered No.6033/2011 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Nallapadu is illegal, null and void. The plaintiff is the father of Gudapati Murali Krishna and paternal grandfather of the minor i.e., defendant Gudapati Venkata Seshu Supriya. The plaintiff had two sons Murali Krishna and Sai Babu and two daughters Patibandla Vijaya Lakshmi and V. Santha Kumari. The said Santha Kumari died about 12 years back and the plaintiff"s wife also died about 10 years back. The plaintiff worked in APSRTC and out of his personal earnings, he purchased the house site under a registered sale deed, dtd. 26/7/1978, from Goli Sambasiva Rao and thereafter he constructed a house in the said property and the Municipal authorities allotted Dr.No.2-4- 28 and the said property is described as schedule property. (i) The plaintiff sold his joint family property in an extent of Ac.1.19 cents of land in D.Nos.335 and 331 of Pedapalakaluru Village to one Ramineni Srinivasa Rao and another for a consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000.00 and received advance amount of Rs.40,00,000.00 and out of love and affection, the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000.00 each to his sons Murali Krishna and Sai Babu and retained only Rs.10,00,000.00. The vendee failed to make the payment of balance sale consideration and he filed O.S. No.240 of 2009 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Guntur for refund of the advance amount. Later, the vendor approached through one Gudapati Ramesh to sell the property of Ac.1.19 cents at Rs.1,20,00,000.00 per acre. But the purchaser insisted registration of the property by the plaintiff along with his two sons. Later, the vendor approached through one Gudapati Ramesh to sell the property of Ac.1.19 cents at Rs.1,20,00,000.00 per acre. But the purchaser insisted registration of the property by the plaintiff along with his two sons. So, the plaintiff informed his sons that the share of the deceased daughter has to be distributed among himself and his two sons and his existing daughter Patibandla Vijaya Lakshmi as per Hindu law. But his two sons refused to allot any share to the daughters of the plaintiff and further insisted that the joint family property has to be distributed in three equal shares among them and thereby the plaintiff was constrained to accept for the same. While things stood thus, the vendee of the said property paid an amount of Rs.60,00,000.00 to one Gudapati Rama Rao, resident of Paladugu. The plaintiff insisted upon 1/3rd share of the amount paid by the vendee. Then the mediators promised to distribute the amount among the plaintiff and his sons equally and paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 out of Rs.60,00,000.00 to the plaintiff duly promising that the balance Rs.10,00,000.00 has to be paid along with the share of the sale consideration at the time of registration. They further informed the plaintiff that their sons may not co-operate for registration of the property in case the total consideration was shared and paid prior to registration of the property. Consequently, the plaintiff has accepted for their proposal and received Rs.10,00,000.00 and kept the same in State Bank of India and Andhra Bank by mentioning the name of his daughter Vijaya Lakshmi as nominee. Having come to know about the said nomination, the two sons of the plaintiff objected and insisted upon partition of the joint family properties. At the time of registration, the vendee paid the balance sale consideration and kept the same with the mediators Rama Rao and Ramesh, and the mediators supported the sons of the plaintiff and did not pay the share of the plaintiff out of the balance sale consideration and on the other hand the sons of the plaintiff and mediators Rama Rao and Ramesh insisted the plaintiff for partition of the joint family properties among the plaintiff and his two sons alone leaving the share of the living daughter of the plaintiff and also the share of deceased daughter. They further stipulated a condition that until the partition deed is executed and registered, they will not pay the share of the plaintiff in the property sold. On elaborate discussions, it was agreed among the parties and that the plaintiff was allotted an extent of Ac.0.30 cents of land and 218 Sq. Yards site and a tiled house therein, whereas the first son Murali Krishna was allotted a house bearing Dr.No.2/4/28 and his second son Sai Babu was allotted house bearing Dr.No.2/4/29. As such a draft partition deed was prepared and the same was shown to the counsel of the plaintiff Sri J. Nageswara Rao, Advocate and the plaintiff along with his two sons and two mediators Rama Rao and Ramesh together with one Sudhakar, a document writer, attended before the Sub Registrar"s Office and it was agreed among the parties that three copies of the partition deed have to be prepared and each party shall take one copy. The document writer obtained signatures of the plaintiff on three sets of the documents duly representing that they are the copies of the partition deed. Trusting the sons, mediators and document writer, the plaintiff signed on all the three sets and attended for registration of the property. Thereafter, the document writer failed to furnish the copy of the partition deed to the plaintiff and thereby the plaintiff got enquired and came to know that instead of executing three copies of partition deed, as agreed upon among the parties, the mediators and two sons of the plaintiff in collusion with the document writer Sudhakar prepared two sets of partition deed stating as if the plaintiff was allotted Rs.3,00,000.00 and his two sons were allotted two separate houses together with Ac.0.30 cents of land and 218 Sq. Yards of site along with a house therein. (ii) The plaintiff further came to know that the said persons in collusion with each other fabricated a sale deed, dtd. 19/7/2011, registered as Document No.6033/2011 of SubRegistrar Office, Nallapadu and the contents of the certified copy obtained by the plaintiff further reveals that the plaintiff as if sold his self acquired property i.e., schedule property to his granddaughter the defendant herein for a consideration of Rs.24,10,000.00. (iii) The plaintiff never sold the property shown in the schedule to anybody and he never received any consideration from his son Gudapati Murali Krishna or his granddaughter Venkata Seshu Supriya. (iii) The plaintiff never sold the property shown in the schedule to anybody and he never received any consideration from his son Gudapati Murali Krishna or his granddaughter Venkata Seshu Supriya. Subsequent to registration of the partition deed, the mediators have not paid the total 1/3rd amount payable to the plaintiff and they have colluded with the sons of the plaintiff and paid only Rs.15,00,000.00 towards balance sale consideration. (iv) The sale deed, dtd. 19/7/2011, registered as document No.6033/2011 of SRO, Nallapadu is null and void and it was obtained only by playing fraud upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to his two sons, mediators, and a document writer and they received the same but did not choose to give any reply. The plaintiff also gave report to SHO, Pattabhipuram PS. But the SHO, Pattabhipuram PS refused to receive the same, so he filed a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate Court. Hence, the Suit. 4. Gudapati Murali Krishna, who is the father and natural guardian of the minor defendant, filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and contending that the two sons of the plaintiff agreed to execute a sale deed along with the plaintiff in favour of Ramineni Srinivasa Rao on condition that they should get their 1/3rd share each from out of the advance amount and also the balance sale consideration and also insisted for partition of the ancestral properties into three equal shares. The plaintiff agreed for partition after registration of the sale deed in respect of Ac.1.19 cents in favour of Ramineni Srinivasa Rao. Meanwhile the said Srinivasa Rao paid an amount of Rs.60,00,000.00 to the plaintiff directly on 20/5/2011. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 each out of their share at the time of partition of ancestral properties. The elder son of the plaintiff is innocent and he is not worldly wise. The wife of the plaintiff died in the year 2001 and since then his elder son Murali Krishna i.e., father of the defendant used to cook and serve food to his father and he is looking after the welfare of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought up his elder son in such a way that he fear to refuse his father"s command. The plaintiff brought up his elder son in such a way that he fear to refuse his father"s command. Taking advantage of gullible nature of the father of the defendant, the plaintiff ventured to deal with the ancestral properties single handed without informing his elder son. The plaintiff and his two sons have executed a registered General Power of Attorney-cum-sale agreement in favour of Ramineni Srinivasa Rao on 11/7/2011 without pressing for the disbursement of the share honestly believing the words of the plaintiff regarding amicable partition of the ancestral properties. As advance sale consideration was received by the plaintiff himself, his two sons or the mediators Ramesh and Rama Rao have nothing to do with the same. One week after registration of the ancestral property in favour of Ramineni Srinivasa Rao, the plaintiff himself got prepared the partition deed regarding the ancestral properties and the sale deed regarding the personal property in favour of defendant showing the father of the defendant as her guardian with the knowledge and advice of his Advocate. The above circumstances would clearly indicate that there is no inducement or deceitfulness on the part of anybody in executing the sale deed in question by the plaintiff. The partition deed and the sale deed executed in favour of defendant were presented for registration by the plaintiff himself. When the father of the defendant demanded his share from out of the consideration of Ac.1.19 cents, the plaintiff represented that he had accepted a lesser share in the ancestral properties besides alienation of his self acquired property in favour of his minor daughter i.e., the defendant herein without selling the same to the outsiders and so saying he refused to pay his share from out of the sale consideration. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff received more money towards consideration than the real value of the schedule property by denying the payment of his share in the sale proceeds of Ac.1.19 cents. The plaintiff is a well educated man with wisdom. The plaintiff himself in a conscious state of mind had executed the title deed in favour of his granddaughter in lieu of sale consideration to be paid to the minor"s father towards his share in the ancestral property. Therefore, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the sale deed, dtd. 19/7/2011, was obtained from the plaintiff by playing fraud upon the plaintiff. Therefore, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the sale deed, dtd. 19/7/2011, was obtained from the plaintiff by playing fraud upon the plaintiff. There are no tenable grounds whatsoever to declare the sale deed, dtd. 19/7/2011, executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant as illegal, null and void. (ii) The defendant"s father got issued a suitable reply, dtd. 27/8/2011, after receiving the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Additional District Judge settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the sale deed, dtd. 19/7/2011, is illegal, null and void? 2) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and further examined PW.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-22. The minor defendant did not adduce any evidence. The learned Additional District Judge closed the evidence of the defendant and proceeded to decide the matter on merits having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge after conclusion of trial, with the impugned judgment, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Challenging the same, the appellant, who was the defendant before the learned Additional District Judge, being represented by her father, filed the present Appeal. 8. Now, in deciding this Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1) Whether the plaintiff before the learned Additional District Judge proved his entitlement to declare the registered sale deed, dtd. 19/7/2011, on the file of Sub-Registrar"s Office, Nallapadu as illegal, null and void? 2) Whether the impugned judgment and decree is legally sustainable under law and facts? 3) To what relief? POINT Nos.1 and 2: 9. PW.1 before the trial Court is no other than the plaintiff, who got filed his chief-examination affidavit and through his examination Exs.A-1 to A-22 were marked. He further examined PW.2 - Gudapati Saibabu. In the chief-examination affidavit, PW.1 put forth the facts in accordance with with the plaint averments. Literally, the evidence of PW.2 is to support the case of the plaintiff. There is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the defendant before the learned Additional District Judge. 10. He further examined PW.2 - Gudapati Saibabu. In the chief-examination affidavit, PW.1 put forth the facts in accordance with with the plaint averments. Literally, the evidence of PW.2 is to support the case of the plaintiff. There is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the defendant before the learned Additional District Judge. 10. Sri M. Chalapati Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend mainly that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge would amount to ex parte decree, which is passed against a minor and when the father of the appellant did not let in any evidence, the learned Additional District ought to have considered to appoint a Court Guardian. When the next friend of the defendant was not prosecuting the suit, the proper course was to appoint a Court guardian. He would further submit that on account of the ill-health, the father of the defendant could not let in evidence in support of the cause of the minor. Passing an ex parte decree against the minor is not at all sustainable under law and facts and the Appeal can be disposed of on this ground itself. He would further submit that if the Court comes to a conclusion that ultimately such judgment is not sustainable, Court may remand the matter to the trial Court. To contend that the impugned judgment would amount to ex parte decree, he would rely upon the decisions in Gutti Kumari Lakshmi and others v. Boddu Sanjeeva Rao, 2021 (4) ALD 450 (AP). and Ekkaladevi Devaiah v. Bojja Laxmi and others, 2017 (5) ALD 194 . He would further rely upon the decisions in Ram Kishen and another v. Radhey Lal and others,1930 (0) AIR (All) 130. and Manoranjan Samanta Kumar v. Brundabati Veergam,1968 SCC OnLine Ori 77. to contend that the trial Court is duty bound to protect the interests of the minor and, if the guardian is not acting properly, it would be the duty of the Court to remove him and to see that the interest of the minor is protected. He would further submit that, at any rate, even the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Additional District Judge overlooking the contents of the documents is not proper and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is liable to be set-aside. 11. He would further submit that, at any rate, even the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Additional District Judge overlooking the contents of the documents is not proper and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is liable to be set-aside. 11. Sri A. Lalith, learned counsel, representing Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, would seek to support the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court, on proper analyzation of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and the documents marked came to a right conclusion that the sale deed sought to be declared as null and void on account of the fraud played against the plaintiff by the father of the defendant and there is no rebuttal evidence on record and father of the defendant before the trial Court was dragging the matter and that now respondent/plaintiff is aged about 85 years as such the judgment and decree is not liable to be set-aside. 12. There is no dispute about the age of the appellant as on the date of Appeal. The appellant is aged about 10 years as on the date of Appeal. Even in the plaint, her age was shown as 5 years. So, undoubtedly, the appellant is a minor. As the appellant seriously challenged the validity of the judgment on the ground that an ex parte decree against the minor is not proper without appointing a Court guardian, if the next friend of the minor was not prosecuting the Suit properly, this Court firstly would like to deal with the said contention. If the appellant is able to succeed in this contention, there is no need or necessity to examine the validity of the judgment on other aspects as to the entitlement of the respondent/plaintiff to seek that the sale deed is illegal and null and void. 13. While examining the record, firstly, to know as to what type of order was passed by the learned Additional District Judge under Order XXXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the CPC"), this Court found that there was an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.988 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff, under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC, to appoint Gudapati Murali Krishna as guardian to the minor Gudapati Venkata Seshu Priya, the defendant. As evident from the same, the trial Court ordered notice to the proposed guardian. Sri J. Muralee Dhar, Advocate, filed vakalath for the respondent (guardian). The trial Court dismissed the Application considering that Sri J. Muralee Dhar, Advocate, filed vakalath for the respondent (guardian). 14. This was the order insofar as I.A. No.988 of 2011 is concerned. 15. The docket proceedings of the Suit further reveals that when the matter was coming for the evidence of the defendant and when there was no representation, the learned Additional District Judge closed the evidence of the defendant side, and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff, posted the matter for judgment and delivered the impugned judgment. There is no dispute that the defendant got cross-examined PW.1 and PW.2. There is no further dispute that the defendant minor did not adduce any evidence. 16. Though there was no literal order setting the defendant ex parte but the fact remained is that closing of the evidence of the defendant minor was a default order. 17. At this juncture, it is pertinent to look into the relevant provisions under Order XVII CPC. Order XVII Rule 2 CPC reads as follows: "2. Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed - Where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit. (Explanation - Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the Court may, in its discretion, proceed with the case as if such party were present)". 18. There was an amendment to Order XVII Rule 3 CPC by the Andhra Pradesh and the explanation provided to by way of such amendment runs as follows: "Explanation - The mere presence in Court of a party or his counsel not duly instructed shall not be considered to be an appearance of the party within the meaning of this rule." 19. Now, turning to Order XVII Rule 3 CPC, it runs as follows: "3. Now, turning to Order XVII Rule 3 CPC, it runs as follows: "3. Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence, etc., - Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default, - (a) If the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith, or (b) If the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under Rule 2". 20. So, as evident from the explanation to Order XVII Rule 2 CPC, where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and if such party fails to appear only, the Court may, in its discretion, proceed with the case as if such party were present. There is no denial of the fact that defendant did not adduce any evidence, whatsoever. Apart from this, even under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC, if a party fails to produce the evidence, which is necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed even in the presence of the party also the Court has to proceed to decide the suit forthwith if the parties are present. If the parties are absent, the Court has to proceed under Rule 2 CPC. So, it is clear that it is a case where the defendant did not let in any evidence and further the guardian of the defendant failed to present himself when the matter was coming for the evidence of the defendant. So, under Order XVII Rules 2 and 3 of CPC, the decree amounts to ex parte one. 21. Turning to the decision in Gutti Kumari Lakshmi (1st supra) also the factual matrix is such that the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money filed his chief-examination affidavit and got marked the documents and he was cross-examined. Later, the defendant did not cross-examine PW.2 and PW.3 and did not let in any evidence and the trial Court proceeded to hear the plaintiff side and decided the matter on merits. Similar is the situation in another decision in Ekkaldevi Devaiah (2nd supra). In both the aforesaid cases, the decree was held to be ex parte. 22. Later, the defendant did not cross-examine PW.2 and PW.3 and did not let in any evidence and the trial Court proceeded to hear the plaintiff side and decided the matter on merits. Similar is the situation in another decision in Ekkaldevi Devaiah (2nd supra). In both the aforesaid cases, the decree was held to be ex parte. 22. Having regard to Order XVII Rules 2 and 3 of CPC and looking into the above decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in Gutti Kumari Lakshmi (1st supra) and a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Ekkaldevi Devaiah (2nd supra), undoubtedly, the impugned judgment and decree would amount to ex parte decree. 23. Now, I proceed to deal with whether passing of such an ex parte decree against the minor, when the father of the defendant was not prosecuting the suit properly, is sustainable under law. 24. As seen from Order XXXII CPC, it regulates the suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind. According to Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC, 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. Such an order can be obtained by the applicant in the name and on behalf of the minor or by the plaintiff. Such an 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. It further contemplates issuance of a prior notice to the guardian before passing any order. 25. As this Court already pointed out in the earlier discussion, I.A. No.988 of 2011 was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC to appoint father of the defendant as guardian. Even I.A. No.988 of 2011 was not dealt with by the learned Additional District Judge properly. Simply because the guardian got filed vakalath such an application cannot be dismissed. Even I.A. No.988 of 2011 was not dealt with by the learned Additional District Judge properly. Simply because the guardian got filed vakalath such an application cannot be dismissed. The order passed under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC should indicate about the consent of the party to act as guardian for the minor and the further order shall at least disclose that the Court recognized the fact that the proposed person is the guardian of the defendant. Though I.A. No.988 of 2011 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, but the fact remained is that for all practical purposes, the learned Additional District Judge impliedly recognized the father of the defendant as guardian. So, the father of the defendant was continuing as guardian as on the date of closing of the evidence of the minor. In the decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellant in Ram Kishen (3rd supra) and Manoranjan Samanta Kumar (4th supra), the duties of the trial Court to protect the interests of the minor were dealt with. 26. Now coming to Order XXXII Rule 11 CPC, it runs as follows: "11. Retirement, removal or death of guardian for the suit - (1) Where the guardian for the suit desire to retire or does not do his duty, or where other sufficient ground is made to appear, the Court may permit such guardian to retire or may remove him, and may make such order as to costs as it thinks fit. (2) Where the guardian for the suit retires, dies or is removed by the Court during the pendency of the suit, the Court shall appoint a new guardian in his place." 27. So the facts and circumstances are such that the father of the defendant did not do his duty properly before the learned Additional District Judge. He did not prosecute the suit properly. Now, it is the contention of the appellant that father of the guardian was not feeling well as on the date of closing of the evidence etc. At this juncture, this Court is not concerned with the so called ill-health of the father of the appellant as to why he did not prosecute the suit properly but what is evident is that when the case was posted for the evidence of the defendant minor, father of the defendant did not get any representation. At this juncture, this Court is not concerned with the so called ill-health of the father of the appellant as to why he did not prosecute the suit properly but what is evident is that when the case was posted for the evidence of the defendant minor, father of the defendant did not get any representation. So, undoubtedly, it goes to show that he was not prosecuting the suit properly and he was not doing his duty in accordance with law. Even the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge at Para No.15 means that the father of the defendant did not come forward for giving evidence and for the reasons best known to him, he shunned the witness box. Further, the learned Additional District Judge at Para No.16 of the judgment made an observation that father of the defendant has not come forward for giving evidence and even he did not take any steps for examining the scribe and attestors of Ex.A-2 - sale deed for establishing that it is supported by consideration. The learned Additional District Judge has drawn an adverse inference against the contention of the minor defendant that original of Ex.A-2 is supported by consideration. Even a look at the judgment, as above, means that the father of the defendant did not do his duty properly. 28. Order XXXII Rule 11 CPC vests the discretion with the Court to appoint any person, as it thinks fit, as guardian when the guardian did not do his duty. There is no dispute that when the father of the defendant was not prosecuting the suit properly, the trial Court did not exercise its powers under Order XXXII Rule 11 CPC to appoint another guardian. 29. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that the ex parte judgment and decree passed against the minor without recourse to order XXXII Rule 11 CPC is not at all sustainable under law. 30. Therefore, there is no need or necessity to delve into other aspects as to whether evidence on record would prove the case of the respondent/plaintiff or not. Hence, the proper course is to setaside the impugned judgment and decree and to remand the matter to the trial Court to give opportunity to the minor defendant to adduce her evidence. 30. Therefore, there is no need or necessity to delve into other aspects as to whether evidence on record would prove the case of the respondent/plaintiff or not. Hence, the proper course is to setaside the impugned judgment and decree and to remand the matter to the trial Court to give opportunity to the minor defendant to adduce her evidence. As it is brought to the notice of the Court that the age of the respondent/plaintiff now is about 85 years, which is not in dispute, and the Suit is of the year 2011, it is appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a time bound period. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered. 31. POINT No.3: In the result, the judgment and decree, dtd. 24/4/2017, in O.S. No.321 of 2011 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to the learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur to give an opportunity to the appellant/defendant to adduce evidence and to dispose of the matter, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably not later than six (6) months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the father of the defendant is not co-operative to adduce evidence, the trial Court shall take appropriate steps to appoint a guardian for the defendant in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, each party shall bear their own costs in the Appeal. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed