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 o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document