JUDGMENT 1. - This is a civil revision petition assailing the order of the learned trial Court whereby it rejected application of Geetadevi mother and natural guardian of minor Mohit and thereby the trial court declined to interfere with appointment of Shri Satish Modi (Advocate) as court guardian of minor Mohit and further declined to the prayer of applicant to file additional written statement on minor Mohit having attained majority. 2. Undisputed facts are that during pendency of a suit for eviction filed by plaintiff (respondent No.l), original defendant Vijay Narain Khandelwal had died and in his place his eight legal heirs were substituted and arrayed as defendants, out of whom Babulal defendant No. 1/1 had also died thereby his minor son Mohit (petitioner) besides his other legal representative including his wife Geetadevi were brought on record as defendant No. 1/1/1. Thereafter the trial court after keeping in view provisions contained in Order 32 Civil Procedure Code, appointed one Satish Modi Advocate as Court guardian of minor Mohit on a fees fixed at Rs. 1100/- and he was furnished with necessary and requisite copies of the plaint and other allied pleadings of the parties on record. But Geetadevi mother and natural guardian of minor Mohit (petitioner) moved an application complaining that his lis interests were not being properly looked into by the court guardian, inasmuch as neither summon of plaint nor notice by court guardian had been, served, therefore, it has been prayed that his mother and natural guardian be appointed instead of court guardian so as to properly represent on his behalf and for interests in the suit, besides by furnishing with copy of plaint so as to enable to file additional written statement. The plaintiff protested the application moved by Geetadevi on behalf of minor defendant Mohit (petitioner). After hearing the parties, the trial court by the impugned order dated 20.1.1998 rejected and declined to the prayers made by Geetadavi on behalf of minor defendant Mohit. Hence this revision petition. 3. This Court admitted this revision petition and issued notice to the plaintiff respondent and also stayed eviction proceedings pending before the trial court till further orders. After hearing the parties, the trial court by the impugned order dated 20.1.1998 rejected and declined to the prayers made by Geetadavi on behalf of minor defendant Mohit. Hence this revision petition. 3. This Court admitted this revision petition and issued notice to the plaintiff respondent and also stayed eviction proceedings pending before the trial court till further orders. After survives of notice on the plaintiff respondent and upon application having been moved by the plaintiff to dispense with service of proforma respondents (defendants), another application was also moved on behalf of the plaintiff respondent stating therein that minor defendant has attained the majority and thereby the revision petition has become infructuous. A copy of this application was also supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who opposed to it and argued on merits assailing the impugned order of the trial court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order so also the citations made at the bar, viz. (1) Rajeev v. Devinarain Mathw 1997(1) WLC 71 ; (2) Mai Kiyat Singh v. Om Prakash 1994 (2) RLR 507 = AIR 1995 Rajasthan 38 and (3) Ambrishkumar Tiwari v. Sitaram (1997) (3) WLC 193 . 5. Having considered the rival contentions I do not find any error of law or jurisdiction in the impugned order assailed in this revision petition as regards non-revocation of appointment of court guardian by fresh appointment as prayed for by applicant Geetadevi on behalf of minor defendant Mohit, because the only ground urged by the applicant was that no notice was served upon natural guardian, either by /the trial court or by the court guardian, whereas in my considered view, the applicant or minor defendant (petitioner) failed to establish any case before the trial court for revocation of appointment of court guardian of minor defendant, inasmuch as there has been cogent reason to hold that the trial court had issued notice on 26.11.1997 prior to appointment of court guardian in question, against mother and natural guardian of Mohit (petitioner) for appointing her as his guardian Under Order 32 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code, to which she refused to accept summons and thereafter the summons of notice were got affixed in the presence of witnesses at the address shown of her in the cause title and accordingly service through affixation was deemed as sufficient. Thus having taken all safeguards and essentials required for complying with the provisions under Order 32 for appointing court guardian, I do not find that the trial court has committed error of law in not interfering with or revoking appointment of court guardian on the assertions made in the application in question. 6. Above all, as a result of attaining majority, the object to the prayer of substituting court guardian by Geetadevi as guardian ad litem to minor defendant has already frustrated. Moreover, by efflux of time the minor defendant has attained the majority, by virtue of which he has accrued a right Under Order 32 as well as other provisions contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure to file additional written statement because obviously at the time when the original written statement was filed and when he was substituted upon death of his father, the petitioner was a minor and had neither acquired the age of discretion, which he has now acquired after attaining the majority and hence his interest deserves to be safeguarded by giving him necessary permission to file additional written statement protecting his right and interest to protest as defendant In the suit. I am fortified by the view taken by me in Rajeev v. Devinarain Mathur (supra). 7. As laid down in Ambrishkumar Ttwari v. Sitaram (supra), provisions of Order 32 Rule 12 with the aid of Section 151 read with Order 6 Rule 16 Civil Procedure Code can be made applicable to minor defendant much in same way as it applies to minor plaintiff, inasmuch as minor defendant on attaining majority can apply to remove name of guardian and the court must then direct plaintiff to amend plaint showing minor defendant as major where after the said defendant to file his own written statement. As discussed above, indisputably defendant petitioner was minor at the time when he was substituted as legal representative of Babulal one of substituted legal representatives of original defendant and his natural guardian an mother Geetadevi was also substituted and impleaded as defendant No. 1/1/1. Summons was served upon both of them, and that apart, summons was also issued against Geetadevi before appointing court guardian but she avoided its service by refusal therefore summons where got affixed at the address to which she was served individually while being substituted legal representative of babulal one of heirs of original defendant. Summons was served upon both of them, and that apart, summons was also issued against Geetadevi before appointing court guardian but she avoided its service by refusal therefore summons where got affixed at the address to which she was served individually while being substituted legal representative of babulal one of heirs of original defendant. Despite that she did not care to come forward and represent her minor son Mohit (petitioner) and thereby Satish Modi was appointed as court guardian by the trial Court In compliance of and after satisfaction being recorded in the light of provisibns Under Order 32 Civil Procedure Code. 8. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order 32 Civil Procedure Code says that Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 or Order 32 shall continue as such throughout the proceedings unless his appointment is terminated by retirement or removal or death. Since in the instant case, court guardian was appointed under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Order 32 Civil Procedure Code, in such a situation the minor defendant on attaining majority can invoke Rule 12" of order 32 Civil Procedure Code- 9. Similarly as laid down in Malkiyatsingh v. Omprakash (supra), ordinarily, the courts may permit to file a fresh written statement to the minor defendant attaining majority pendente lite on his fulfilling following illustrative but not exhaustive conditions (a) If courts of law are satisfied that the case on behalf of minor defendant was not properly contested by their natural guardian or guardian ad literm or by next friend. (b) The interest of the guardian or guardian ad literm is found to be adverse to the interest of minor defendant who attained majority during pendency of the litigation. (c) Where a serious prejudice is caused to the interest of the minor defendant during pendency of the litigation due to misconduct or gross negligence of his natural guardian or guardian ad litem. (d)The application for leave of the court to file a fresh written statement in place of earlier written statement filed by his or her natural guardian or guardian ad litem is bona fide and has not been moved with ulterior motive. 10. (d)The application for leave of the court to file a fresh written statement in place of earlier written statement filed by his or her natural guardian or guardian ad litem is bona fide and has not been moved with ulterior motive. 10. Since these conditions are not exhaustive therefore, in appropriate cases and in compelling reasons brought to the notice of the court, being court of law and justice may allow the minor defendant to file a fresh written statement after attaining majority but within parameters prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, with a view to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court at the instance of any of the parties to the suit including plaintiff and minor defendant or co-defendants also. 11. As a result of the above discussion, this civil revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 12.1.1998 of the learned trial Court whereby application of Geetadevi was rejected, is modified to the extent that since minor defendant Mohit has attained the majority, he (Mohit) shall be allowed to file additional written statement before the trial Court if he is so advised but In accordance with provisions contained under the Code of Civil Procedure including Orders 6, 8, 22, 32 and other relevant Orders & rules made therein. However, the impugned order declining to appoint Geetadevi as guardian of minor defendant (petitioner) in substitution of court guardian namely Shri Satish Modi is affirmed. There would be no order as to costs. Since the present matter relates to eviction proceedings pending for last so many years and these are at final stage, therefore the petitioner defendant is expected to cooperate with exeditlous disposal and that being so, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings of eviction and decide the same as early as possible but not beyond three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.Revision partly allowed. *******