1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is defendant in Title Suit No. 109 of 2003, which was filed by opposite parties no.1 to 3 for partition of the suit property.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 6.7.2004, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Nalanda at Bihar-Sharif dismissed his petition for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code ofCivil Procedure.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner is the father of opposite party no. 4 (defendant) who has a wife (plaintiff no. 3) two minor sons (plaintiff no.1 and defendant no. 3) and a minor daughter (plaintiff no. 2). Learned counsel for the petitioner further avers that since the property in suit is the property of the ancestor of Ravindra Prasad Sinha, who is alive, his wife and daughter (plaintiffs no. 2, and 3) cannot file a suit for partition. He further claims that plaintiff no.1 has been impleaded through his mother (plaintiff no. 3) as natural guardian and next friend but in the presence of father, mother cannot be a guardian or next friend and hence the suit was not maintainable having been filed by the said persons and therefore, it was inc