THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4132 of 2010 Oral order: This revision is directed against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole dated 13-8-2010 dismissing E.A.No. 623 of 2008 filed by the revision petitioner in E.P.No. 90 of 2005 in O.S.No. 249 of 2002. The revision petitioner filed the application under Section 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to declare the execution proceedings as null and void, as they were held behind his back. The revision petitioner was the 3rd defendant and the 3rd judgment debtor in the E.P. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No. 249 of 2002 for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note executed by late Kondru Rajendra Kumar, the father of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner’s grand mother Karunamma (since deceased) was the 2nd defendant. The revision petitioner was arrayed as 3rd defendant, a minor represented by his mother, the 1st defendant and the revision petitioner’s sister was arrayed as the 4th defendant. The suit was decreed on 1-4-2004. In the E.P. filed for execution of the decree, auction of the petition schedule property was held on 22-10-2007 and the auction was also confirmed on 17-1-2008. On 26-11-2008, an year after confirmation of the sale, the revision petitioner filed the application E.A.No. 623 of 2008 seeking the relief already adverted to, of invalidation of the E.P. proceedings including the auction and sale of the property contending that his mother, the 1st defendant/1st judgment debtor had failed to protect his interests by not prosecuting the suit properly; that though he became major by the date of the decree, the said fact was not brought to the notice of the trial court either by his mother, the 1st respondent who was representing him as his guardian and that even in the E.P. he was arrayed as a minor represented by his mother, the 1st defendant/1st judgment debtor and that no notices were served on him including in the E.P. E.A.No. 623 of 2008 was rejected by the court below by the order impugned, following the decision of the Kerala High Court in Savithri v. Vasudevan Nambudri[1]; in which the Kerala High Court followed the decision of the Madras High Court in Lanka Sanyasi v. Lanka Yerranaidu[2]; and of this Court in S.Lakshmi Narayana @ Narayanudu v. Gangamma[3]. The above three decisions consistently, on interpretation of the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 held that it is for the minor to a proceeding to elect, on attaining majority, whether to continue the proceedings through the guardian or to come on record on his own status on attaining the age of majority. In the decision of this Court in Lakshmi Narayana (supra) the facts are apposite and are recorded succinctly by the court below, wherein the suit for partition was decreed after the revision petitioner was brought on record as the legal representative of the 1st defendant, being a minor represented by his mother and natural guardian who filed the written statement contesting the suit. The suit was decreed in 1992 and much later in 1998, the revision petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree contending that the suit was decreed without taking steps to declare him as a major and without notice to him, as unsustainable under law for the said reason. It was contended by the revision petitioner in that case that he had attained majority even by the date of the decree. This Court, concurring with the judgment of the trial and the lower appellate courts therein held, following and interpreting the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 12 CPC that it is apparent that if the defendant had attained majority during the pendency of the suit, he could elect to litigate or prosecute on his own status on attaining such majority, but however if he chose not 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. In view of the consistent legal position, this Court finds no error in the order of the court below, either in the application of law or in exercise of the discretion warranting revisional interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This revision is without merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 9th September, 2010. GRR [1] AIR 1959 Kerala 387 (DB) [2] AIR 1928 Madras 294 [3] 2010 (4) ALD 226