AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 214 wordsRajes Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist.
The revisionist is a Defendant in the suit. The Plaintiff is a minor and filed the suit through his grand father. An application has been moved by the revisionist before the Trial Court that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that it has not been filed through the next friend and, therefore, it is not maintainable under Order XXXII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Admittedly, the father is not alive, though the mother is alive, but the suit has been filed through the grand father. Under Order XXXII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the word used is ''next friend''. The ''next friend'' is not confined to the natural guardian only. The Patna High Court in the case of Narain Singh Vs. Sapurna Kuer and Others, has observed that a next friend can be any person, not necessarily any of the guardians enumerated in Section 4 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Therefore, the suit filed by the minor through grand father cannot be said to be not maintainable.
In view of the above, I do not see any error in the order passed by the Court below. The revision fails and is dismissed.