IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 6972 of 2025 DEV PRAKASH TRIPATHI Versus MAHENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI B AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Hemant Kumar Chauhan - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Atul Kumar Pathak - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER By way of this petition challenge is made to the order dated

11.11.2025, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner, whereby prayer was made to get the written statement and counterclaim signed by the petitioner - the defendant No.2 and to mark the name of defendant No.2 as party No.1 in the counterclaim.

2. A suit has been filed in the year 2017 by the plaintiffs, who are brothers of father of the present petitioner and in the said suit, the father of the present petitioner filed a written statement on his behalf as well as on behalf of the present petitioner, who in the plaint filed in the year 2017 was stated to be 16 years of age. The written statement as well as the counterclaim was signed by the defendant No.1 being father of the present petitioner - defendant No. 2. In the counterclaim, a pleading was made that the defendant No. 2 was granted Will in his favour in respect of the suit property and on the basis of Will he projected his separate rights.

3. After filing this written statement as well as counterclaim on

04.03.2021, an application was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 32 Rule 3 and 4 CPC seeking to appoint a guardian/next friend of the minor petitioner and that application was allowed on 16.02.2024.

4. The trial Court vide order dated 16.02.2024 has considered in detail that since the defendant No. 2/present petitioner asserts his rights on the basis of Will of his grandfather, therefore, his rights become adverse to that of defendant No.1, who is the own father of petitioner, and hence defendant No.1 cannot be permitted to represent defendant No. 2 as guardian/next friend. After reaching to this conclusion, the trial Court directed the present petitioner to be represented by his mother and appointed Mrs. Sulekha Tripathi mother of the present petitioner as his guardian/next friend ad litem.

5. However, the guardian chose not to sign the pleadings i.e. written statement and counterclaim on behalf of the minor though she was appointed guardian by the court and the matter was continued for evidence.

6. In the year 2025 i.e. on 07.10.2025, the petitioner filed an application that he has attained majority and therefore, he may be permitted to sign the pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though this application was captioned as 1 under Order 6 Rule 17, but it could be treated to be 1 under Order 6 Rule 14 CPC and the counterclaim and written statement cannot be scuttled for the technical defect.

7. During course of hearing, counsel for the petitioner further tried to project before the Court that the actual date of birth of the present petitioner is in the year 2023 and therefore, he has attained majority in the year 2021 itself. This is being asserted on the basis of the Aadhaar card.

8. It is settled in law that Aadhaar card is not a proof of age and if the present petitioner had attained the age of majority in the year 2021, then such assertion was to be made before the trial Court, then the trial Court was appointing next friend in the year 2024 by way of the detailed order dated 16.02.2024. Therefore, this Court refrains from commenting on the age of the petitioner.

9. Even in the application filed before the trial Court by the present petitioner, no date of attaining majority has been placed on the record and from the order sheet dated 16.02.2024, it is clear that when the trial Court was considering appointment of guardian/next friend in the year 2024, even the trial Court was not informed with the position that the petitioner has attained the age of majority. The date of attaining age of