JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. Defendant-Petitioner moved an application before the learned trial Court under Order 32 Rule 11 & 12 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer that he was impleaded as defendant No. 2 by the plaintiff-respondent in a case filed by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration and permanent injunction relating to the piece of land situated at village Jatwara, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. It was stated by the respondent that he had applied for obtaining a Patta from the Gram Panchayat in the year 1980. However, the same was not released in-spite of the assurance and process and a decision was taken to release the Patta on 20/12/1997 and the Patta was released on 07/03/1998 in favour of the defendant-petitioner who was minor. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner through his father Shri Kishan Jat and in the circumstances, the defendant-petitioner filed the aforesaid application Order 32 Rule 11 & 12 read with Section 151 CPC on 15/06/2009 after attaining the age of majority within three years thereto requesting for being impleaded as a defendant in person and to give him an opportunity of hearing independently. It was his submission that while impleading the defendant-petitioner as the defendant No. 2, no permission was sought from the Court for appointment of the guardian or appointing of the next friend. 3. Another application was moved by the defendant-petitioner under Order 32 Rule 3A(2) read with Section 151 CPC stating that while he was minor, his father was shown by the plaintiff-respondent as his guardian and the suit was filed against him wherein gross negligence was shown by his guardian and the written statement was not filed and the right of filing the written statement was closed by the learned trial Court' and he was, therefore, prevented from filing written statement to the plaint. As the plaint relates to the ownership and title of the immovable property for which a Patta has been issued in favour of the defendant-petitioner, his rights have been seriously affected and he cannot be held responsible for the negligence of the guardian who was not appointed with prior permission of the trial Court. As he has become an independent party to the suit on 09/12/2012, he should be allowed to file his written statement and contest the case. 4. As he has become an independent party to the suit on 09/12/2012, he should be allowed to file his written statement and contest the case. 4. A reply to the aforesaid application was filed wherein it was informed that the suit was filed in the year 1999 against the defendant No. 2-petitioner through his natural guardian (father) and the defendant's father had conducted all the proceedings as a natural guardian not only before the trial Court but had also filed proceedings before the High Court and the defendant-petitioner cannot take advantage again with regard to the same proceedings for which his guardian had already taken up the matter all the way upto the High Court. 5. After providing hearing to the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the application vide order impugned dt. 17.01.2013 against which the present writ petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner assails the order impugned dt. 17.01.2013 on the ground that the defendant-petitioner was entitled to be impleaded as an independent party because he attained majority during pendency of the suit. The intention of the legislature as per Order 32 Rule 12 CPC clearly required the defendant-petitioner to be impleaded as a party to the suit after attaining majority and merely because the defendant-petitioner wants retrial of the case, the provisions of CPC cannot be ignored as a right is vested by virtue of Order 32 Rule 11 and 12 CPC. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner relies on the judgment in Gopal Dass vs. Tej Singh, (1996) 2 WLC 1 ; Ambrish Kumar Tiwari vs. Sita Ram Jhalani and Others, AIR 1998 Rajasthan 21 and Khursheed Ahmad and Anr. vs. Gulzar Ahmad and Ors., AIR 2006 Allahabad 280. 7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that as per provisions of Section 34 of Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, an appeal would lie against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Gram Nyayalaya and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Further, it is submitted that as the order impugned dt. 17.01.2013 involves disputed questions of facts to be decided in appeal, the writ petition would not lie directly against the impugned order. Further, it is submitted that as the order impugned dt. 17.01.2013 involves disputed questions of facts to be decided in appeal, the writ petition would not lie directly against the impugned order. It is further pointed out that the stand taken by the defendant-petitioner of not seeking formal permission by the plaintiff-respondent from the Court for filing a suit against the defendant-petitioner is wholly unsustainable. A suit against a minor would lie through his natural guardian. The natural guardian did not object to pursue the suit on behalf of his ward and therefore, the provisions of Order 32 Rule 3 CPC for appointment of guardian of minor were not required to be formally proceeded with and once the Court proceeds with the suit for trial, it can be said that the procedural requirement has been followed. It is further submitted that the natural guardian has taken all steps and has not only contested the suit but has also preferred a writ petition before the High Court and thus, it cannot be said that the case was not being followed properly. It is further submitted that the defendant-petitioner had attained the majority in the year 2006 but he did not bother to raise any issue for 7-8 years and till the year 2012, he kept on contesting the case through his father and when the case was at the stage of final arguments, the application was moved on 09.04.2012 merely to delay the proceedings and by hook and crook, he wants delay in decision of the suit. 8. I have considered the submissions and perused the law cited. 9. Order 32 Rule 3 CPC provides as under:- 3. Guardian for the suit to be appointed by Court for minor defendant.-(1) Where the defendant is a minor the Court, on being satisfied of the fact of his minority, shall appoint a proper person to be guardian for the suit for such minor. (2) An order for the appointment of a guardian for the suit may be obtained upon application in the name and on behalf of the minor or by the plaintiff. (3) Such application shall be supported by an affidavit verifying the fact that the proposed guardian has no interest in the matters in controversy in the suit adverse to that of the minor and that he is a fit person to be so appointed. (3) Such application shall be supported by an affidavit verifying the fact that the proposed guardian has no interest in the matters in controversy in the suit adverse to that of the minor and that he is a fit person to be so appointed. (4) No order shall be made on any application under this rule except upon notice to any guardian of the minor appointed or declared by an authority competent in that behalf, or, where there is no such guardian, upon notice to the father or where there is no father or mother, to other natural guardian of the minor, or, where there is no father, mother or other natural guardian, to the person in whose care the minor is, and after hearing any objection which may be urged on behalf of any person served with notice under this sub-rule. (4A) The Court may, in any case, if it thinks fit, issue notice under sub-rule (4) to the minor also. (5) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) to be guardian for the suit for a minor shall, unless his appointment is terminated by retirement, removal or death, continue as such throughout all proceedings arising out of the suit including proceedings in any Appellate or Revisional Court and any proceedings in the execution of a decree." 10. Thus, guardian ad-litem required to be appointed under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC is on the discretion of the Court which is to be satisfied for appointing for a proper person to be guardian for the suit for such minor. It can be on an application moved by the minor or at his behalf or by the plaintiff. As per Order 32 Rule 3(4), such guardian ad-litem shall not be appointed unless a notice is given to the father or where there is no father, to the mother or other natural guardian of the minor. 11. So far as the judgment rendered by Allahabad High Court in the case Khursheed Ahmad and Anr. vs. Gulzar Ahmad and Ors. (supra) is concerned, in U.P. the Order 32 Rule 3(3) CPC has been amended and so far as Order 32 Rule 3(4) is concerned, it has also been amended and further no notice is required to be issued if the minor is under 12 years of age has also been added by a proviso. 12. vs. Gulzar Ahmad and Ors. (supra) is concerned, in U.P. the Order 32 Rule 3(3) CPC has been amended and so far as Order 32 Rule 3(4) is concerned, it has also been amended and further no notice is required to be issued if the minor is under 12 years of age has also been added by a proviso. 12. In Rajasthan, however, there is no such addition or amendment to the original provision of Order 32 Rule 3 CPC as quoted above. In the light of the amendments, the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in Khursheed Ahmad and Anr. vs. Gulzar Ahmad and Ors. (supra), holding it mandatory for the Court to first appoint guardian and thereafter proceed with the case, would not lie and would not be applicable to the present circumstances. 13. It is noticed that the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in Ambrish Kumar Titoari vs. Sita Ram Jhalani and Others (supra), follows the law laid down in Milind Saran Kothiwal vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AIR 1987 All. 339 and in V. Anil Kumar vs. J. Krishna Murty, AIR 1995 Andh Pra 105 and the provision quoted in the said judgment is not the correct provision and appears to be the provision as amended in Allahabad. Accordingly, the view taken by this Court in Ambrish Kumar Tiwari vs. Sita Ram Jhalani and Others (supra) has to be treated as per-incuriam as it does not take into consideration the correct provision of law as applicable in the State of Rajasthan. 14. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, as per the plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, once a minor is impleaded as a party to the suit through his natural guardian (father), exercise under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC is not required to be formally proceeded with by the Court and the guardian ad-litem in terms of Order 32 Rule 1, 2 and 3 cannot be said to be mandatory procedure to be followed by the Courts for proceeding further with the suit once minor is represented through the natural guardian. 15. 15. Coming to the facts of the case, it is noticed that the learned trial Court has taken note of the fact that the written statement of the defendant-petitioner representing through his natural guardian (father) was required to be filed after notices were served upon him and he failed to file written statement for more than four years where after vide order dt. 05.05.2003 the right to file written statement was closed. On 25.01.1995, the defendant-petitioner appeared through his father and moved an application on 25.01.1995 under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC which was allowed vide order dt. 26.05.2006 on a cost of 500/- to participate in the proceedings. However, as opportunity to file written statement was closed, another application was moved by father of the defendant-petitioner for allowing him to file written statement which was rejected by the Court vide order dt. 26.07.2007 and the case was posted for recording evidence where after documents were filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner. The same were rejected by the Court vide order dt. 06.05.2009 and opportunity was given to the defendant-petitioner to produce its evidence and affidavits were filed on his behalf and cross-examination was also conducted. An application was moved for producing DW-2-Laduram as a witness which was rejected by the Court vide order dt. 17.08.2010. Against the said order of the Court, a writ petition, bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14670/2010 was preferred before this Court and this Court directed the evidence of Laduram to be recorded on cost of Rs. 500/-. Thus, the Court below has found that father of the defendant-petitioner has been diligently pursuing the case on his behalf of the defendant-petitioner and it cannot be said that there was any carelessness shown by the concerned natural guardian. The date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 15/05/1988. Thus, he has attained majority on 15/06/2006 where after the writ petition was filed through his father in the year 2010 before the High Court and the petitioner did not object to the suit being pursued by his father. The application now has been moved in 2012 after the case was listed for final arguments and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the application is genuine and based on clear bonafides. Hence, the application moved under Order 32 Rule 12 CPC, after six years of attaining of majority, is held to be not maintainable. The application now has been moved in 2012 after the case was listed for final arguments and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the application is genuine and based on clear bonafides. Hence, the application moved under Order 32 Rule 12 CPC, after six years of attaining of majority, is held to be not maintainable. 16. As this Court is affirming the order passed by the Gram Nayayalaya, although there is an alternative remedy available in terms of Section 34 of the Gram Nayayalaya Act of preferring an appeal against any order passed by Gram Nayayalaya, since the case has been pending before this Court since 2013, the question relating to alternative remedy is left open and need not be gone into after lapse of almost six years of pendency of the case before this Court. 17. The writ petition is found to be without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.