JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned order dated 11.01.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Court No.3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., whereby an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) having been filed by the respondents-defendants No.2 & 3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendants No.2 & 3’), seeking therein permission to file separate written statement came to be allowed, the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the impugned order referred hereinabove. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record, are that the plaintiff filed a suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are co-owners in joint possession in equal share qua the share of their father Shri Munshi Ram @ Munshi in the suit land as described in the plaint on the basis of registered Will dated 23.4.1997 executed by him. Plaintiff by way of aforesaid suit also sought declaration that if any other document purporting to be Will is produced by the defendants then same be declared illegal, wrong, null and void and result of fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation. Plaintiff further prayed that the defendants may be restrained from creating any charge, cutting the trees, changing the nature, alienating the land, raising any construction and getting the mutation sanctioned on the basis of the alleged Will dated 11.12.2009. 3. Aforesaid suit, having been filed by the plaintiff, came to be resisted by way of written statement, having been filed on behalf of defendants No.1 to 3 and 13, wherein defendant No.1, father of defendants No.2 and 3, who were minors at that time, admitted factum with regard to execution and registration of Will dated 23.4.1997. During the pendency of suit, referred hereinabove, defendants No.2 and 3 filed application under Section 151 CPC, seeking therein permission of Court to file their separate written statement. In the said application, defendants No.2 and 3 averred that in a suit having been filed by the plaintiff they were earlier being represented by their father, defendant No.1 Shri Sukh Dev, whose interest is adverse to their interest. In the said application, defendants No.2 and 3 averred that in a suit having been filed by the plaintiff they were earlier being represented by their father, defendant No.1 Shri Sukh Dev, whose interest is adverse to their interest. They further averred in the application that after attaining the majority, they were summoned by Court to defend their case and when they engaged their counsel, it transpired that interest of defendant No.1 is with that of plaintiff, wherein he has admitted the claim of plaintiff which is against the interest of applicant. Defendants No.2 and 3 averred in the application that defendant No.1, whose interest is with the plaintiff, could not be the guardian of defendants No.2 and 3 and as such he has no right to file written statement on their behalf. 4. Plaintiff contested the aforesaid application, wherein it is stated that defendants No.2 and 3 are residing with their father defendant No.1 in joint house and as such it cannot be said that their interest is not protected by defendant No.1. Plaintiff in his reply stated that defendants No.2 and 3 are guided and misled by advise given to them for filing this application because it is clear that they have filed the application in league with father. Plaintiff further averred that defendants were aware regarding the subject matter of suit and as such application deserves to be rejected. 5. Learned Court below, on the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, allowed the application and permitted defendants No.2 and 3 to file written statement on their own behalf. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 7. Question which needs to be decided in the instant proceedings is, “whether a minor, after attaining the age of majority, has a right to file an additional written statement, without repudiating the averments made in the written statement filed on his/her behalf by his guardian?” 8. Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel representing the plaintiff, vehemently argued that it is apparent from the record that defendants No.2 and 3, being sons of defendant No.1, reside with him under one roof and as such it cannot be said that their interest is not protected by defendant No.1. Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel representing the plaintiff, vehemently argued that it is apparent from the record that defendants No.2 and 3, being sons of defendant No.1, reside with him under one roof and as such it cannot be said that their interest is not protected by defendant No.1. He further contended that defendants No.2 and 3 had definite knowledge with regard to pendency of suit having been filed by plaintiff, wherein he, on the strength of Will dated 23.4.1997, had claimed that he and defendant No.1 are co-owners in joint possession in equal shares of the suit land, which factum was otherwise admitted by defendant No.1 in the written statement. However, defendants No.2 and 3, who enjoy cordial relations with defendant No.1, solely with a view to fill up the lacunae, which crept in the case of defendant No.1 on account of his admission made in the written statement, moved an application, seeking therein permission to file separate written statement, which could not be allowed at the belated stage. 9. Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, further contended that otherwise also plaintiff by way of suit has already laid challenge to subsequent Will dated 11.12.2009 allegedly executed by the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and as such no fruitful purpose would be served in case defendants No.2 and 3 are allowed to file written statement, who otherwise claim that they have acquired ownership qua the suit property on the basis of Will dated 11.12.2009, but in case impugned order passed by Court below is allowed to sustain, great prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff who is definitely benefited by admission made by defendant No.1 in his written statement with regard to execution of Will dated 23.4.1997 by late Shri Munshi Ram. 10. This Court having carefully perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by the learned Court below in the impugned order, is not persuaded to agree with the contention raised by Shri Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel representing the plaintiff, because admittedly at the time of filing of suit by the plaintiff, defendants No.2 and 3 were minor and they were being sued through their father defendant No.1. It is also not in dispute that written statement, if any, on behalf of defendants No.2 and 3 came to be filed by defendant No.1, who in his written statement admitted execution of Will dated 23.4.1997 executed by late Shri Munshi Ram in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, whereas careful perusal of plaint set up by the plaintiff itself suggests that he had specifically prayed for injunction against defendants by stating that the defendants may be restrained from creating any charge, cutting the trees changing the nature, alienating the land, raising any construction and getting the mutation sanctioned on the basis of the alleged Will dated 11.12.2009, meaning thereby that the Will dated 11.12.2009, if any, executed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3, was very much in existence at the time of filing of plaint by the plaintiff and as such it cannot be said that defendants No.2 and 3, who happened to be sons of defendant No.1, after having attained majority have sought permission of Court to file separate written statement solely with a view to defeat the claim of plaintiff, rather there appears to be considerable force in the arguments of Shri Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel representing the defendants No.2 and 3 that defendant No.1 despite having known the fact with regard to execution of Will dated 11.12.2009 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3, admitted factum of registration of Will dated 23.4.1997, whereby Munshi Ram allegedly bequeathed the suit property in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.1 causing serious prejudice to defendants No.2 and 3. Since factum with regard to execution of Will dated 11.12.2009 by late Munshi Ram in favour of defendants No.2 and 3, who at the time of filing the written statement, were minor, was in knowledge of defendant No.1, he ought not have admitted the claim of plaintiff and as such defendant No.2 and 3, after having attained majority, rightly claimed that interest of defendant No.1 is adverse to their interest and as such they are entitled to file separate written statement. 11. 11. As per Section 3 of The Majority Act, 1875, every person domiciled in India attains the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen years and not before and for the purpose of computing the age of any such person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and is deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day. 12. Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of three years, after attaining the age of majority, to a ward to challenge any transfer of the property made by his guardian. 13. Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC provides that no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claims can 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 of not more than thirty days for presenting the same. 14. In terms of aforesaid provisions, a minor, after attaining the age of majority, can challenge the alienations/transfers made on his behalf by his guardian within a period of 3 years and the Court can also allow additional written statement. 15. Contention put forth by Shri Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the defendants on attaining majority have no right to take different stand superseding the earlier written statement filed by the guardian on their behalf, cannot be accepted. Every minor has a right to repudiate any action of the guardian upon attaining the majority by way of additional written statement. He/she has certainly a right to repudiate such action and to file his/her separate written statement and his/her own defence which he may think appropriate. Reliance, as placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in S.Malla Reddy vs. Future Builders Cooperative Housing Society and Others, (2013)9 SCC 349 by Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is highly misplaced. 16. Reliance, as placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in S.Malla Reddy vs. Future Builders Cooperative Housing Society and Others, (2013)9 SCC 349 by Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is highly misplaced. 16. Mr.Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel representing the respondents, is right in saying that if a minor has a right to challenge the alienation made by the guardian, there is no reason why he can’t resist such transfer to be effected soon after attaining majority. Similarly, when minor can file the suit after attaining the age of majority, he can also file additional written statement in terms of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled: Nishan Singh vs. Paramjit Kaur and Ors., CR No.222 of 2014, decided on 11.11.2014, wherein the Court has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Abhishek Suresh Umbarkar v. Prashant Vidyadharrao Deotalo and another, 2009(5) BCR 673; 2. Rajeev V. Devi Narain Mathur, 1997(3) RCR (Civil) 97; 3. Vanimisatti Anil Kumar and others v. Jayavarapu Krishna Murty and others, 1995 AIR (AP) 105; 4. Kaliammal v. G.N. Ramaswami Goundar, 1957 AIR (Madras) 629; and 5. Shiva Kumar Singh v. Kari Singh and others, 1962 AIR (Patna) 159. 17. In Abhishek Suresh Umbarkar's case (supra), the Bombay High Court has made the following observations:- "7. The only contention that is required to be considered is whether the defendant/minor, upon attaining majority, has right to put defence which may not be in consonance with the earlier written statement. It was contended that the defendant on attaining majority has no right to take different stand superseding the earlier written statement filed by the guardian on his behalf. This contention cannot be accepted. Every minor has a right to repudiate any action of the guardian upon attaining the majority by way of additional written statement. He has certainly a right to repudiate such action and to file his separate statement and his own defence which he may think appropriate. In this case particularly the minor on attaining majority has such right. If a minor has a right to challenge the alienation made by the guardian, there is no reason why he can resist such transfer to be effected soon after attaining majority. 18. In Rajeev's case (supra), following observations have been made by the Rajasthan High Court:- “8. In this case particularly the minor on attaining majority has such right. If a minor has a right to challenge the alienation made by the guardian, there is no reason why he can resist such transfer to be effected soon after attaining majority. 18. In Rajeev's case (supra), following observations have been made by the Rajasthan High Court:- “8. In support of his contention advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the matter of Verkataswami v. U.V. Vilasa Nidhi, AIR 1935 Madras 117 and in the matter of Ramakhelawan Singh v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1937 Patna 625 and the VINOD KUMAR 2014.11.18 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.2222 of 2014 [8] ***** judgment of this Court in the matter of Milkiyat Singh and another v. Om Prakash and others, 1995(1) WLC Raj. 191. I have gone through the ratio of the above judgments and in my opinion the ratio of the Patna High Court as well as of the Madras High Court in the aforesaid judgments are distinguishable and not applicable to this case. I am further of the opinion that the ratio of the decision of this Court in Malkiyat Singh and another v. Om Parkash and others (supra), is applicable to this case and it helps in advancing the case of the petitioner rather than that of the respondent. In the said judgment, learned Single Judge of this Court has observed with respect as to what safeguards should be adopted by the trial Court while allowing permission to file additional written statement when the minor attains the age of majority. It was guardian ad-litem, on attaining the majority pending litigation there is no prohibition or bar to his filing additional written statement by advancing such pleas which earlier could not be raised on his behalf by his guardian. What the Court has to safeguard is that the application for leave of the Court to file a fresh written statement should not be ordinarily declined but the Court has to see that the application has been moved bona fide and has not been moved with ulterior motives." 19. In Vanimisatti Anil Kumar's case (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held as under:- "20. In Vanimisatti Anil Kumar's case (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held as under:- "20. It is settled law that, a minor, after he becomes major, is always entitled to question the transactions, done on his behalf during his minority, by his guardian, by filing a separate suit. In the instant case, the 2nd defendant attained majority during the pendency of the suit itself. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in filing a separate written statement by the 2nd defendant, contrary to the averments already made by the 1st defendant in the written statement filed by him for himself and on behalf of his minor son - the 2nd defendant." 20. In Shiva Kumar Singh's case (supra), the Patna High Court has observed as under:- "A minor defendant when he attains majority can file another written statement with the leave of the Court granted under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code; but that is subject to the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17. He can also amend his written statement, but that is also subject to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 and to the well established principles of law in the matter of allowing amendment of pleadings." 21. In Abhishek vs. Prashant Vidyadharrao Deotale and Others, Writ Petition No.5350 of 2008, decided on 09.07.2009, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench at Nagpur has held as under:- “6. In the decision reported in AIR 1935 Madras 117 Venkataswami Naidu vs. U. V. Vilasa Nidhr Ltd. the Madras High Court held that a minor defendant is not entitled on attaining majority to put in additional written statement without leave of Court. It is therefore obvious that with the leave of the Court, minor defendant is allowed to file separate written statement. Such a leave has already been granted and against that part of the order the plaintiff has not preferred any revision or writ petition. That part, therefore, assumes finality and the said part therefore need not be interfered into. 7. The only contention that is required to be considered is whether the defendant-minor upon attaining majority, has right to put defence which may not be in consonance with the earlier written statement. It was contended that the defendant on attaining majority has no right to take different stand superseding the earlier written statement filed by the guardian on his behalf. The only contention that is required to be considered is whether the defendant-minor upon attaining majority, has right to put defence which may not be in consonance with the earlier written statement. It was contended that the defendant on attaining majority has no right to take different stand superseding the earlier written statement filed by the guardian on his behalf. This contention cannot be accepted. Every minor has a right to repudiate any action of the guardian upon attaining the majority by way of additional written statement. He has certainly a right to repudiate such action and to file his separate statement and his own defence which he may think appropriate. In this case particularly the minor on attaining majority has such right. If a minor has a right to challenge the alienation made by the guardian, there is no reason why he can resist such transfer to be effected soon after attaining majority.” 22. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vanimisatti Anil Kumar and Others vs. Jayavarapu Krishna Murty and Others, AIR 1995 AP 105 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “20. It is settled law that, a minor, after he becomes major, is always entitled to question the transactions, done on his behalf during his minority, by his guardian, by filing a separate suit. In the instant case, the 2nd defendant attained majority during the pendency of the suit itself. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in filing a separate written statement by the 2nd defendant, contrary' to the averments already made by the 1st defendant in the written statement filed by him for himself and on behalf of his minor son -- the 2nd defendant. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents, relying upon the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, viz., -- "no pleading shall, except by way of amendment raise any new ground to claim or contend any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same"--, contended that the contrary pleas taken by the 2nd defendant in his subsequent written statement filed, have to be ignored. Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. will apply to a case where a separate written statement is sought to be filed by the same defendant contrary to the averments already made by him in the earlier or previous written statement. Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. will apply to a case where a separate written statement is sought to be filed by the same defendant contrary to the averments already made by him in the earlier or previous written statement. The provisions of O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. will not apply to the case of a minor filing a separate written statement, on attaining majority. As stated already, the minor can, after his attaining majority, within the time prescribed, question the transactions done by his guardian on his behalf, during his minority. Therefore, I hold that there is no illegality or irregularity in filing a separate written statement by the 2nd defendant on his attaining majority, contrary to the averments already made on his behalf, by his guardian --the 1st defendant, in the earlier written statement.” 23. It is quiet apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that if a minor has a right to repudiate any action of his guardian upon attaining the age of majority by filing a suit within a period of 3 years, he would certainly have a right to take extra pleadings after attaining the age of majority which were not taken by the Court Guardian/Guardian due to ignorance and which could adversely affect the interest of such a person who could not plead his case on his own due to his legal disability at that time. 24. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down supra, the question, formulated above, is answered accordingly. This petition is dismissed and impugned order dated 11.01.2018 passed by Court below is upheld. 25. Learned counsel representing the parties to appear before the Court below on 28.12.2018. Record, if any, of Court below be sent back forthwith. 26. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.