Order on Board

05.10.2023 Heard.

1. Admit.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the orders dated 19.03.2021 and

18.08.2021 passed by the IInd Civil Judge Class-1, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 43 A/2020, parties being Satendra Pal Singh & Others vs. Amarjeet Kaur & Others, whereby an application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff No. 3 under Order 32 Rule 12 of CPC and another under Order 18 Rule 17 (A) of CPC were rejected and thereafter an application moved under Section 151 of CPC for review was also rejected.

3. The facts of the present case are that a civil suit was filed by the petitioner and two other plaintiffs for partition. The petitioner was minor at that time; therefore, the suit was instituted through the next friend of the petitioner. The written statement along with the counter claim was filed. The date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.2003 and during the pendency of the civil suit, he attained majority on 01.01.2021, therefore, the application under Order 32 Rule 12 of CPC seeking permission to pursue his case independently and to remove the next friend was moved on 01.03.2021. The respondents filed reply to such application stating that proper explanation and reason to remove the next friend has not been assigned. The learned trial Court vide order dated 16.03.2021 rejected the application on the ground that no sufficient reason has been assigned by the petitioner in the application. Thereafter, the application under Section 151 was moved for review of the order and the same was also rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 18.08.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.2003, he attained majority on 01.01.2021 and thereafter an application was moved on 01.03.2021. He would submit that the learned Court below ought to have allowed the application.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for State/respondent No. 9 and learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 would oppose.

6. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 would submit that the learned trial Court has passed a well reasoned order. He would further submit that sufficient reasons were not assigned by the petitioner in his application for the removal of the next friend. He would also submit that the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

8. Order 32 Rule 12 of CPC reads as under:-

“Order 32 – Suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind.

Rule 12 - Course to be followed by minor plaintiff or applicant on attaining majority.– (1) A minor plaintiff or a minor not a party to a suit on whose behalf an application is pending shall, on attaining majority, elect whether he will proceed with the suit or application.

(2) Where he elects to proceed with the suit or application, he shall apply for an order discharging the next friend and for leave to proceed in his own name.

(3) The title of the suit or application shall in such case be corrected so as to read henceforth thus:

''A.B., late a minor, by C.D., his next friend, but now having attained majority.''

(4) Where he elects to abandon the suit or application, he shall, if a sole plaintiff or sole applicant, apply for an order to dismiss the suit or application on repayment of the costs incurred by the defendant or opposite party or which may have been paid by his next friend.

(5) Any application under this rule may be made ex parte but no order discharging a next friend and permitting a minor plaintiff to proceed in his own name shall be made without notice to the next friend.”

9. Now coming to the facts of the present case in the light of the provisions of Order 32 Rule 12 CPC, it is quite vivid that a person, after attaining majority, has every right to elect whether he will proceed with the suit or application in his own name or through next friend. In the present case, the petitioner opted to prosecute his