1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10493/2007. Mandir Murti Bhairunji and Others. VERSUS Sita Ram and Others. 02.02.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Jinesh Jain, for the petitioners. Mr.Mahendra Goyal ] Mr.Mahesh Gupta ] for the respondents. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial court dated 22.11.2007 on the application filed under Order 32 Rule 11 C.P.C. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners along with one Smt.Sarju Bai filed a suit for the property in the name of minor Thakurji Moorti Bhaironji situated in village Shahpura. One of the plaintiffs namely Smt.Sarju Bai died during the pendency of the suit and as her Legal Representative Smt.Pushpa Devi, respondent No.3 herein was substituted in her place. It is alleged that Smt.Pushpa Devi, respondent No.3 herein, filed an affidavit during the course of evidence and in the said affidavit she did not support the case of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, an application came to be filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for exclusion of the affidavit filed by Smt.Pushpa Devi from the plaintiffs' evidence and treat the same as evidence of the defendants. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned trial court by its order dated 19.03.2005 2 (Annexure R-3/1). By the present application, the petitioners have moved this court for removal of the respondent No.3 Smt.Pushpa Devi who has been substituted as legal representative of Smt.Sarju Bai and guardian of the minor Mandir Moorti Bhaironji as contemplated by Order 32 Rule 11 C.P.C. The learned trial court has rejected the aforesaid application, hence this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considered the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, I find that Thakurji, the Minor, was being represented apart from the deceased plaintiff Smt.Sarju Bai by two other persons namely Om Narain and Bihari Lal who are petitioners No.2 and 3 respectively before this court and who are still the plaintiffs in the suit. Since, they are acting in the best interest of the Minor, the mere fact that Smt.Pushpa Bai, the legal representative of one of the plaintiffs Smt.Sarju Bai, is not supporting the case of the plaintiffs would in the facts and circumstances have no effect so far as the case of the Minor is concerned. In the facts and circumstances, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 22.11.2007 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.