The main legal point established in the judgment is the rights of a minor defendant under Order 32 Civil Procedure Code and the conditions under which a minor defendant can file a fresh written statement upon attaining majority.

1. - This is a civil revision petition assailing the order of the learned trial Court whereby it rejected application of Geetadevi mother and natural guardian of minor Mohit and thereby the trial court declined to interfere with appointment of Shri Satish Modi (Advocate) as court guardian of minor Mohit and further declined to the prayer of applicant to file additional written statement on minor Mohit having attained majority.

2. Undisputed facts are that during pendency of a suit for eviction filed by plaintiff (respondent No.l), original defendant Vijay Narain Khandelwal had died and in his place his eight legal heirs were substituted and arrayed as defendants, out of whom Babulal defendant No. 1/1 had also died thereby his minor son Mohit (petitioner) besides his other legal representative including his wife Geetadevi were brought on record as defendant No. 1/1/1. Thereafter the trial court after keeping in view provisions contained in Order 32 Civil Procedure Code, appointed one Satish Modi Advocate as Court guardian of minor Mohit on a fees fixed at Rs. 1100/- and he was furnished with necessary and requisite copies of the plaint and other allied pleadings of the parties on record. But Geetadevi mother and natural guardian of minor Mohit (petitioner) moved an application complaining that his lis interests were not being properly looked into by the court guardian, inasmuch as neither summon of plaint nor notice by court guardian had been, served, therefore, it has been prayed that his mother and natural guardian be appointed instead of court guardian so as to properly represent on his behalf and for interests in the suit, besides by furnishing with copy of plaint so as to enable to file additional written statement. The plaintiff protested the application moved by Geetadevi on behalf of minor defendant Mohit (petitioner). After hearing the parties, the trial court by the impugned order dated 20.1.1998 rejected and declined to the prayers made by Geetadavi on behalf of minor defendant Mohit. Hence this revision petition.

3. This Court admitted this revision petition and issued notice to the plaintiff respondent and also stayed eviction proceedings pending before the trial court till further orders. After survives of notice on the plaintiff respondent and upon application having been moved by the plaintiff to dispense with service of proforma respondents (defendants), another application was also moved on behalf of the plaintiff respondent stating therein that minor defendant has attained the majority and thereby the revision petition has become infructuous. A copy of this application was also supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who opposed to it and argued on merits assailing the impugned order of the trial court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order so also the citations made at the bar, viz. (1) Rajeev v. Devinarain Mathw 1997(1) WLC 71 ; (2) Mai Kiyat Singh v. Om Prakash 1994 (2) RLR 507 = AIR 1995 Rajasthan 38 and (3) Ambrishkumar Tiwari v. Sitaram (1997) (3) WLC 193 .

5. Having considered the rival contentions I do not find any error of law or jurisdiction in the impugned order assailed in this revision petition as regards non-revocation of appointment of court guardian by fresh appointment as prayed for by applicant Geetadevi on behalf of minor defendant Mohit, because the only ground urged by the applicant was that no notice was served upon natural guardian, either by /the trial court or by the court guardian, whereas in my considered view, the applicant or minor defendant (petitioner) failed to establish any case before the trial court for revocation of appointment of court guardian of minor defendant, inasmuch as there has been cogent reason to hold that the trial court had issued notice on 26.11.1997 prior to appointment of court guardian in question, against mother and natural guardian of Mohit (petitioner) for appointing her as his guardian U