The petitioner must establish prejudice caused by non-compliance with procedural rules to warrant permission to file a fresh written statement.

Ravi Ranjan, J.

1. This Revision is directed against the order dated 29.4.2003 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Katihar, in Title Suit No. 40 of 2000, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for allowing him to contest the suit, as he has now attained majority, has been rejected by the concerned court.

2. Title Suit No. 40 of 2000 has been filed by the opposite party no. 1 for declaration of title upon the suit property, mentioned in Schedule-A to the plaint, which the plaintiff has claimed to have acquired by two registered sale deeds of gift executed by his mother, Smt. Sita Devi Agrawal, in his favour. The opposite party no. 2, alongwith her sons, the petitioner and opposite party no. 3, as well as daughter-opposite party no. 4, were impleaded as defendants. The sons and daughters were shown to be minors and subsequently, their guardian ad litem was appointed by the court. The mother, defendant-opposite party no. 2, had appeared and filed written statement. Written statement had also been filed on behalf of the minors through the guardian ad litem. However, the petitioner filed a petition, as contained in Annexure-T to this Civil Revision, stating therein that now he has attained majority and as such he may be granted permission for contesting the suit. Subsequently, the plaintiff had also amended the plaint to that effect and now had shown the petitioner as major. An application was again filed by the petitioner before the court below (contained in Annexure-3 to this Civil Revision) stating therein that the written statement filed by the guardian ad litem on behalf of the minors was incomplete and not sufficient, therefore, the defendant no. 2-petitioner be allowed to contest the suit and also to file correct written statement. It had also been stated that the guardian ad litem filed the written statement without proper inquiry and without following the guidance provided under Rule 185 of the Civil Court Rules. However, the trial court had rejected the prayer by order dated 29.4.2008 stating therein that the mother of the minor defendants had filed detailed written statement and had also examined witnesses. Since final argument had already been completed on behalf of the defendants, it would not be proper to allow the defendant-petitioner to file written statement afresh as the same would again reopen the trial.

3. I have heard the parties and perused the records.

4. It had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after attaining majority, the petitioner, on examination of the written statement, had found the same to be insufficient, therefore, it would be proper in the interest of justice to allow him to file a fresh written statement. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards Rule 185 of the Civil Court Rules to impress upon that the guardian ad litem was required to make a communication with a natural guardian of the minors with regard to the subject matter of the suit and if no response was received then he was required to report the court concerned and apply for leave to go to the locality for necessary inquiry and submit a report before the court. It was submitted that none of the provisions, as contained in Rule 185 of the Civil Court Rules, having been followed by the guardian ad litem, the entire proceeding suffered from flaw and, thus, it made out a fit case wherein the petitioner should have been allowed to file a fresh written statement. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Vaidyanath Sahay V/s. Rambadan Singh and Another, reported in AIR 1966 Patna 383. Learned counsel had specially placed reliance upon paragraph-10 of the aforesaid decision wherein the Court has made observation that it was not enough that a minor should be merely represented by a guardian rather he should be represented effectively and in a case where the interests of the minor were