JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. Defendant-Petitioner moved an application before the learned trial Court under Order 32 Rule 11 & 12 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer that he was impleaded as defendant No. 2 by the plaintiff-respondent in a case filed by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration and permanent injunction relating to the piece of land situated at village Jatwara, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. It was stated by the respondent that he had applied for obtaining a Patta from the Gram Panchayat in the year 1980. However, the same was not released in-spite of the assurance and process and a decision was taken to release the Patta on 20/12/1997 and the Patta was released on 07/03/1998 in favour of the defendant-petitioner who was minor.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner through his father Shri Kishan Jat and in the circumstances, the defendant-petitioner filed the aforesaid application Order 32 Rule 11 & 12 read with Section 151 CPC on 15/06/2009 after attaining the age of majority within three years thereto requesting for being impleaded as a defendant in person and to give him an opportunity of hearing independently. It was his submission that while impleading the defendant-petitioner as the defendant No. 2, no permission was sought from the Court for appointment of the guardian or appointing of the next friend.

3. Another application was moved by the defendant-petitioner under Order 32 Rule 3A(2) read with Section 151 CPC stating that while he was minor, his father was shown by the plaintiff-respondent as his guardian and the suit was filed against him wherein gross negligence was shown by his guardian and the written statement was not filed and the right of filing the written statement was closed by the learned trial Court' and he was, therefore, prevented from filing written statement to the plaint. As the plaint relates to the ownership and title of the immovable property for which a Patta has been issued in favour of the defendant-petitioner, his rights have been seriously affected and he cannot be held responsible for the negligence of the guardian who was not appointed with prior permission of the trial Court. As he has become an independent party to the suit on 09/12/2012, he should be allowed to file his written statement and contest the case.

4. A reply to the aforesaid application was filed wherein it was informed that the suit was filed in the year 1999 against the defendant No. 2-petitioner through his natural guardian (father) and the defendant's father had conducted all the proceedings as a natural guardian not only before the trial Court but had also filed proceedings before the High Court and the defendant-petitioner cannot take advantage again with regard to the same proceedings for which his guardian had already taken up the matter all the way upto the High Court.

5. After providing hearing to the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the application vide order impugned dt. 17.01.2013 against which the present writ petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner assails the order impugned dt. 17.01.2013 on the ground that the defendant-petitioner was entitled to be impleaded as an independent party because he attained majority during pendency of the suit. The intention of the legislature as per Order 32 Rule 12 CPC clearly required the defendant-petitioner to be impleaded as a party to the suit after attaining majority and merely because the defendant-petitioner wants retrial of the case, the provisions of CPC cannot be ignored as a right is vested by virtue of Order 32 Rule 11 and 12 CPC. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner relies on the judgment in Gopal Dass vs. Tej Singh, (1996) 2 WLC 1; Ambrish Kumar Tiwari vs. Sita Ram Jhalani and Others, AIR 1998 Rajasthan 21 and Khursheed Ahmad and Anr. vs. Gulzar Ahmad and Ors., AIR 2006 Allahabad 280.

7. Pe