- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist.
(2.) 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 32, Rule 2 of the CPC. Admittedly, the father is not alive, though the mother is alive, but the suit has been filed through the grand father. Under Order 32, Rule 2 of the CPC, 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 v. Sapurna Kuer and others, reported in AIR 1968 Patna 318, in paragraph 4, 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. Revision dismissed.;