Honble MADAN, J. – I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the impugned order dated 2.7.96 passed by the learned A.D.J. No. 5 Jaipur City , Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 62/89, whereby the request of the petitioner for filing additional written statement has been rejected by the trial court.The grievance of the petitioner is that on 22.12.86 suit for eviction of the plaintiff-res- pondent No. 1 was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and reasonable and the bonafide personal necessity of the disputed shop for its use by the plaintiff and his son. The petitioners father expired on 22.6.87, during the pendency of the suit and thereafter the legal representatives of the petitioner namely his widow non- petitioner No.2, his son non- petitioner No. 3 and the main petitioner were substituted and arrayed as parties to the proceedings After the substitution, written statement was filed by Smt. Raj Devi non-petitioner No. 2 .At the time of imstifution of the suit the petitioner was a minor and, therefore, a guardian was appointed by the court who filed written statement on his behalf on 12.12.88. After the petitioner attained the age of majority on 28.5.94, he discovered on inspection of the pleadings that certain material issues had been omitted from the written statement which was filed on his behalf by his guardian and as a result of this he immediately moved to the trial court through his counts on 20.11.94 and filed an application for permission to file additional/ amended written statement since certain vital pleas have been omitted to be urged in the original written statement.The said applica- tion came to be rejected vide order dated 2.7.96 against which the present revision has been preferred to this Court.

(2) During the course of hearing it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner whose interest was being looked after earlier by his father when he was a minor and after attaining the age of majority and af- ter the demise of his father he was entitled to raise an appropriate defence befitting his character as a tenant since he had become the tenant by operation of law under Section 3(7)(b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. Hence the trial court should have granted permission to the petitioner to raise such pleas which were available to him under law by filing the amended written state- ment in view of the change in the circumstances. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the inadvertence of the counsel the party cannot be penalised for the factual omission has been made on this behalf.

(3) It will be appropriate to refer to the statutory provisions as envisaged un- der Order 8 Rule 9 read with Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC which reads as under :–

`` O.8 R. 9 – Subsequent pleadings – No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the court and upon such terms as the court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same .

(4) In support of his contentions advanced at the bar, leaned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Nasiruddin & Ors. Vs. Smt. Noor Jahan & Ors. (1) and on the Full Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Kedar Nath Vs. Mohani Devi(2),

(5) In the matter of Nasiruddin & Ors. Smt. Noor Jahan & Ors.(Supra), the question which had arisen in a revision petition before this Court arising out of a partition suit was as to where a legal representative who is impleaded as a party to the suit on attaining the majority, whether his individual character as well as the character as legal representative merges and a new consolidated character is created and whether i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document