MALKIYAT SINGH Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision is directed against the order dated 27-7-1994 passed by learned Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria District Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No. 84 of 1993, whereby, the learned Court issued notices under Order 32, C.P.C. to the defendant petitioners on 31-3-1994 calling upon the defendant-petitioners to attend the court and to do 'Pairvi' of the case on their behalf as they have attained majority during the pendency of litigation instead of 'pairvi' being done by their natural guardian Shri Hakam Singh who happened to be their father. The learned court-below vide its notice dated 31-3-1994 called upon the defendant-petitioners to put in their appearance on 28-4-1994.

(2.) In pursuance of the aforesaid notice issued by the learned Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, both the defendant-petitioners appeared in court and moved an application on 18-5-1994 seeking the leave of the court to file written statement, in the said application, they have stated that they want to put forth with their claim at their own descretion. They also alleged in their application that they are not able to contest their suit in correct perspective unless they are allowed to file fresh written statement. A copy of the said application was served to the plaintiffs who filed a detailed objection reiterating therein that a proper 'pairvi' was always done on their behalf by Shri Hakam Singh, who was a co-defendant along with them and was also their natural guardian being their father. It is also alleged in the counter objection by the plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 that the present application has been moved by the defendant-petitioners in collusion of their natural guardian in order to delay earlier disposal of the suit. It is also stated in the counter that the defendant-petitioners cannot be allowed to counter-blast the defence taken by their father Hakam Singh. According to plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 and 2, the defendant-petitioners were not entitled to file fresh written statement as contemplated under Order 32, C.P.C.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners as well as the plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 and 2, learned Civil Judge rejected the aforementioned application for filing fresh written statement on behalf of the defendant-petitioners. Learned Civil Judge in support of his conclusion placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Khelawan Singh v. Ganga Prasad (AIR 1937 Pat 625). The learned Civil Judge has taken a view that in view of the provisions of Order 8, Rule 9 and Order 6, Rule 7, C.P.C. in the case of minors, where a guardian ad item representing the minor-defendants files a written statement and the minors attain majority during the pendency of the suit, they cannot be allowed to file a fresh written statement so as to supersede the written statement filed by their guardian ad item.