BAJRANGLAL Vs. UMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the order dated 31-10-1994 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bilaspur rejecting the application preferred under Order 32 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') by the defendant No. 1.

(2.) The facts as have been uncurtained are that the non-applicant No. 1 as plaintiff filed a civil suit No. 9-A/86 in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur being represented by his maternal uncle, Harishankar Joshi. The suit was for declaration of right, title interest and permanent injunction. After the plaintiff became major the defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 32 Rule 12 of 'the Code' requiring the plaintiff to make an election either to proceed with the suit or abandon the same. The said application was resisted by the guardian and the learned trial Judge rejected the application on the ground that it was open to the plaintiff to make a choice.

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Order 32 Rule 12 of the CPC to highlight that when a minor plaintiff becomes major he has to make an election whether to contest the suit or abandon the same and if he chooses to continue with the suit he has to apply for discharging of his next friend. Mr. Agrawal has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Bhanu Pratap Singh v. Ram Sahai, 1981, MPWN 246 (SN), Ishar Singh v. Bakshish Singh AIR 1929 Lahore 555 (2) and Vidya Wati v. Hans Raj AIR 1993 Delhi 187. Resisting the aforesaid submission Mr. Hemant Namdeo, learned counsel for the non-applicants has supported the order passed by the learned trial Judge.