ORDER
B.N. Sapru, J.
1. Milind Saran Kothiwal was a minor when the suit was -instituted against him and others.
2. One Sri Ibne Haider Naqvi, Advocate, was his guardian-ad-litem and he filed a written statement. Milind Saran Kothiwal became a major during the pendency of the suit and made an application before the Court praying that the written statement by him should be cancelled and he should be permitted to file a fresh written statement. This application was rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court held that it will be open to the applicant to apply for amendment of the written statement already filed on his behalf in accordance with the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. and he could not have the written statement already filed cancelled.
2A. It is against this order of the trial Court that this revision has been filed.
3. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant, who has now become a major, is entitled, as a matter of law, to an order superseding the previous written statement and allowing him to file a fresh written statement.
4. Under the Civil P. C, Order VI governs the filing of a written statement, set-off and counter claim. Rule 9 of Order VIII, C.P.C. provides that no pleading subsequent to the written satement 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. There is no provision in the Civil P. C. giving a right to a minor defendant who has attained majority during the pendency of the suit, to file a fresh written statement. He may, of course, amend the written statement already filed in accordance with the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. or confess a judgment.
5. The defendant applicant’s right, in this regard, has been protected by the trial Court.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon several decisions in support of his argument that he has advanced.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant bus referred to a case of Kaliammal v. G.N. Ramaswami Gounder, AIR 1957 Mad 629. In that case, while dealing with the rights of a minor plaintiff, who attained majority during the pendency of the suit, under Order XXXII, 11, 12, C.P.C.) it was held that a minor plaintiff when he attained majority, must be given an opportunity of making even drastic amendments to a plaint according to what he considered ought to have been correct and relevant allegations, for, at the moment, when he attained majority, he took the responsibility for his actions. The Court then went on to observe –
”At that moment, naturally he is given such liberty.”
8. This case is of no direct assistance to the applicant, but the learned counsel for the applicant says that the same principle must be applied to adefendant who attains majority, as is applied in the case of a plaintiff who attains majority.
9. Then very strong reliance is placed upon the case of Lanka Sanyasi v. Lanka Yerran Naidu, AIR 1928 Mad 294. In that case, it was held that a decree passed against a minor defendant who had attained majority without the guardian-ad-litem being discharged and where the defendant without bringing himself on record allowed the case to proceed, is not a nullity. However, it has been held that as a compromise decree has been passed against such a minor who had attained the majority and had not been brought on record the minor could repudiate the compromise decree on the ground that the contract was not binding on him on the well settled principles on which a contract could be repudiated.
10. This case cannot be stretched to give a minor defendant who has attained the majority, a right to have filed another written statement after the guardian-ad-litem has been discharged. It does not deal with that question at all.
11. Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is the case of Savithri v. Vasudevan Nambudiri, AIR 1959 Kerala 387. In that case it was held that where a minor defendant attained majority, but does not take steps to come on record and conduct the case, the judgment of the Court will bind him, as he continued to be represented by the guardian-ad-litem. The Court has relied on the case of Lanka Sanyasi v. Lanka Yerran Naidu, AIR 1928 Mad 294, in support of this proposition.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent, Sri A.N. Bhargava, has referred to a Patna decision in the case of Ram Khelawan Singh v. Ganga Prosad, AIR 1937 Patna 625. It was held that the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 9 and Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. applied to a minor also. Having said this, the Court held that where a guardian-ad-litem representing the minor defendant filed a written statement and the minor defendant attained the majority during the pendency of the suit, he could not claim a right to file a fresh written statement so as to supersede the written statement filed by his guardian-ad-litem.
13. I am in entire agreement with the view of the Patna High -Court in this case. When a minor defendant attains majority and wishes to file a written statement, he may do so either with the leave of the Court under Order V1I1, Rule 9, C.P.C. but he must satisfy the Court that the leave, on the facts of the case, should be given to him. He has, of course, a right to apply for amendment of the written statement within the limits specified by judicial interpretation of Order VI Rule 17 C. P. C. He has no absolute right to get the earlier written statement filed by the guardian-ad-litem superseded in the manner the minor desires in this case.
14. In the result, I find no merits in this revision, which is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage after hearing the counsel for the parties.