Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant/tenant.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the order dated 25.5.2017 in S.C.C. Case No. 29 of 2015 (Radhey Shyam Bhatiya and others v. Anil Kumar) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar, whereby, the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. being paper No. 15-C filed by the petitioner-defendant was rejected and the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. being paper No. 18-C was allowed.

Facts :

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs-respondents are family members who are owners and landlords of shop Nos. 124/1 and 124/2, Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar of which the defendant-petitioner is the tenant. The plaintiff-respondent No. 3 is the son of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The tenancy was created by a registered lease deed for 11 months which fact has been admitted by the defendant-petitioner in para 3 of his written statement. The term of lease as per the lease deed was to expire on 30.6.2015. On account of alleged non payment of rent since August 2014, the plaintiffs-respondents by notice, terminated the tenancy and demanded to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed shops on 30.6.2015 and also to pay arrears of rent. However, the defendant-petitioner neither vacated the disputed shops nor handed over its vacant possession to the plaintiffs-respondents. Therefore, on 15.7.2015 the plaintiffs-respondents filed S.C.C. Case No. 29 of 2015 (Radhey Shyam Bhatiya and 2 others v. Anil Kumar) in the Court of Judge, Small Cause mentioning description of the plaintiffs as under:

^^1- jk/ks';ke HkkfV;k mez yxHkx 49 o"kZ ,.M lal ,pŒ;wŒ,QŒ }kjk jk/ks';ke iq= LoŒ txUukFk HkkfV;kA

2- Js;ka'k HkkfV;k mez yxHkx 27 o"kZ iq= Jh gjh'k dqekj HkkfV;kA

3- Jh lkfRod HkkfV;k ukckfyx mez yxHkx 17 o"kZ iq= Jh jk/ks';ke HkkfV;kA

leLr fuoklhx.k edku uaŒ 766@10 ¼lkr lkS fN;klB cVk nl½ xka/kh dkyksuh] eqtQjuxjA

oknhx.kA^^

4. The defendant-petitioner took objection in para 13 of his written statement dated 7.12.2015 that the plaintiff No. 3 is minor but a next friend as per Order XXXII Rule 1 C.P.C. has not been appointed and therefore, as per Order XXXII Rule 2 C.P.C. the plaint deserves to be taken off the file. On the same day, the defendant-petitioner moved an application dated 7.12.2015 under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. to reject the plaint being barred by provisions of Order XXXII Rule 1 and Rule 2 C.P.C. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiffs-respondents moved an amendment application dated 5.2.2016 being paper No. 18-C under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for adding in the description of the respondent-plaintiff No. 3 the words ^^}kjk uSlfxZd laj{kd firk jk/ks';ke HkkfV;k [kqn^^ and also to add para 3A after para 3 in the plaint. The defendant-petitioner filed an objection dated 1.4.2016 being paper No. 22-C.

5. The aforesaid application under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. being paper No. 16-C was rejected and the amendment application of the plaintiffs-respondents being paper No. 18-C was allowed by the impugned order dated 25.5.2017. Aggrieved with this order, the defendant-petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Submission of the Defendant-petitioner:

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant/tenant submits that the application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. was filed on 7.12.2015 on the ground that the plaintiff No. 3 is a minor but the suit has been instituted without the next friend of the minor. Thus, the suit at the instance of minor, was barred by Order XXXII Rule 1 C.P.C. He submits that the amendment application being paper No. 18-C was subsequently filed on 5.2.2016 and as such the Court below was legally bound to decide first the application of the petitioner-defendant/tenant under Order VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. He, therefore, submits that once the application under O