A minor defendant who attains majority during the pendency of a suit can file another written statement with the leave of the court under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, subject to the provisions of Order 6, Rule 7.

N.Untwalia, J.

1. The plaintiffs opposite first party filed a suit in which the petitioner and opposite party No. 14 were respectively impleaded as minor defendants 2 and 3. The 12th opposite party is defendant No. 1 and the fourth defendant is opposite party No. 13. Defendants 1 and 4 appeared and filed a joint written statement. Defendant No. 1 did not file any appearance or written statement on behalf of his then, minor sons, defendants 2 and 3. Sri Purnendra Prasad was appointed a pleader guardian act litem of the said two minor defendants and on their behalf he filed a written statement on the 15th of January 1957. On the 11th of February 1960, however, the plaintiffs filed a petition in the court below slating that Sri Purnendra Prasad was dead and that the two minor defendant, had attained majority and, therefore, fresh summonses should be issued to and served on them. On the 20th February, 1960 defendant No. 1 filed a petition that defendant No. 2 had attained, majority, but defendant No. 3 had not. On the 24th of February 1960 the plaintiffs filed a petition taking the stand that both the said defendants were still minors and praying to the Court, to recall its order dated the 11th of February 1960.

Defendant No. 2 also appeared and took the stand that he had attained majority. The Court by its order dated the 17th of March, 1960 held that defendant No. 2 had attained majority and defendant No. 3 was a minor. To that extent the order passed on the 11th of February 1960 was modified, On the 25th March 1960 the second defendant filed a petition for time to file his written statement. The Court allowed him time and by this order Sri Dineshwar Sinha was appointed guardian-ad-litem of minor defendant No. 3. The time granted to the petitioner for filing his written statement was subsequently extended up to the 14th of May 1960. It is on this date that he filed an independent written statement. On the 14th of May 1960 Sri Dineshwar Prasad also filed another written statement on behalf of minor defendant No. 3. The learned Munsif by his order under revision dated the 23rd May 1960 has refused to accept the two written statements--the one filed by the petitioner and the other filed by the guardian-ad-litem for defendant No. 3, but has allowed them to amend the original written statements in accordance with law. The petitioner has, therefore come up to this court in revision.

2. In support of this application, Sri Sreenath Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the Court below has committed two errors in refusing to accept the written statement of the petitioner, namely. (1) that he has compared the written statement of the petitioner with that of defendants 1 and 4 and has found out inconsistencies in the two written statements in accordance with Order 6, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code hereinafter referred to as the Code with reference to that written statement; and (2) that the orders dated the 11th of February 1960, the 17th of March 1960, the 25th of March 1960 and the subsequent ones granting time to the petitioner to file his written statement are tantamount to either granting leave to the petitioner to file his written statement within the meaning of Order 6 Rule 9 of the Code or directing him to file one and, therefore the subsequent order refusing to accept Ms written statement is without jurisdiction.

3. In my judgment, there is force in the first point, but none in the second. The correct position of law, as pointed out in Ramkhelawan Singh V/s. Ganga Prosad AIR 1937 Pat 625 seems to be this. A minor defendant when he attains majority can file another written statement with the leave of the Court granted under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code; but that is subject to the provisions of Order 6, Rule 7. He can also amend his written statement, but that is also subject to the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 and to the well established principles of law in the matter of allowing amendment of plea