Honble SHARMA, J.–The issue in the present revision is narrowed down to whether the provisions of Order 32, Rule 12 CPC which apply to minor plaintiff can be made applicable to minor defendant also ?

(2). A few relevant facts leading to this proceeding need be noted at the outset to highlight the nature of controversy posed for my consideration.

(3). A suit for specific performance, declaration and possession in respect of suit property was filed in the trial Court by the plaintiff non-petitioner No.1 (for short the plaintiff) against the defendant petitioner (for short defendant) and defendants non-petitioners No.1 to 13 (for short the other defendants). The defendant was minor at the time of institution of the suit and as per the plaint notices were sent to the defendant through his natural mother Smt. Savitri Devi. However, in para 13 of the plaint it was averred that the defendant was sued through Rameshwar Dayal Advocate (other defendant No.14) as he was stated to be guardian of the defendant who was minor.

(4). Other defendant Rameshwar Dayal, Advocate who himself was arrayed as defendant submitted written statement for himself and on behalf of the defendant jointly. Upon attaining majority the defendant filed an application seeking directions from the court in the name of plaintiff to amend the plaint impleading the defendant in his independent capacity so as to enable him to put forward his own stand independently.

(5). The plaintiff contested the application raising objections that written statement on behalf of the defendant had already been filed and there was no provision to allow the defendant to file written statement again.

(6). The learned Court below dismissed the application of the defendant vide order dated July 2, 1996. Against this order present action for filing the revision has been resorted to.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

(7). What was vehemently argued, however to assail the impugned order was that provisions of Rule 3 or Order 32, CPC was not followed by the learned Court below. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 3 of Order 32 enjoins upon the plaintiff to move an application and get the order for appointment of guardian for the minor for the purpose of suit, who can act in the name and on behalf of the minor. The procedure for deciding the application has been prescribed in sub-rule 3 and 4. The court, there upon, can appoint father, mother or some other person as a guardian of the minor. In the instant case no application under Rule 3 of Order 32 was moved by the plaintiff. Rameshwar Lal Advocate who was made guardian of the defendant, by the plaintiff suo moto, was not appointed by the court under the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 32. Other defendant Smt. Savitri Devi, the natural mother of the defendant and through whom the summons was served upon the defendant, filed her separate written statement. Rameshwar Lal Advocate filed written statement for himself and also mentioned that he was filing the said written statement also on behalf of the defendant. The learned Court below without applying the judicial mind passed the order mechanically. The provisions contained in Order 32 Rule 12 read with Order Rule 8 Rule 9 are attracted in the instant case. Reliance was placed on V. Anil Kumar vs. J. Krishna Murty (1) Shiv Kumar Singh vs. Kari Singh (2) Rajeev vs. D.N. Mathur (3).

(8). Strenuous efforts were made on the other hand, supporting the order impugned. Much was attempted to be made out Rule 9 of Order 8, CPC which per- mits filing of additional written statement with the leave of the Court. It was canvassed that neither such leave was sought nor prayer was made for amending the written statement filed earlier by the guardian but only relief was sought from the trial Court for directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint impleading the defendant in the independent capacity, therefore the order does not suffer from jurisdic- tional error. Reliance was placed on Milind Saran Kothiwal vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta (4) and Malkiyat Singh vs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document