ORDER :- This Rule is directed against an order of the learned Munsif, passed under O. 32, R. 2, Civ. P. C., directing a plaint field by a Mahomedan girl, admittedly, just over 15 years of age on the date when the suit was filed, i.e., 24-5-1947, ((?) to be taken off the file. The learned Munsif was of the opinion that she being under 18 years of age was a minor, according to the Indian Majority Act, and so in view of the provisions of O. 32, R. 1, Civ. P. C., it was necessary that the suit by her should have been instituted in her name by her next friend. 2. A preliminary point was taken on behalf of the opposite party that an appeal did lie against the order of the Munsif, and so the application, under S. 115, Civ. P. C., was not maintainable. O. 43, R. 1 has not included an order passed under O. 32, R. 2 among the orders from which an appeal will lie under the provisions of S. 104, Civ. P. C.I am unable to agree with the learned Advocate for the opposite party that such an order under O. 32, R. 2 should be read to amount to an order under O. 7, R. 9, returning a plaint to be presented to the Court in which a suit should have been instituted. This is not a case of return of the plaint, and there could be no ground for returning the plaint as there was no dispute as to the Court in which this suit should have been instituted. I hold, therefore, that no appeal did lie, and so the application under S. 115, Civ. P. C., is maintainable. 3. It is contended before me by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of the Rule that the provision of S. 3, Majority Act (IX (9) of 1875) under which all persons except those for whose person or property a guardian has been appointed by a Court of justice, and those under the jurisdiction of any Court of Wards shall be deemed to have attained majority when he has completed 18 years and not before, has no application to the case of a Mahomedan girl bringing a suit for dissolution of marriage. Reliance is placed by him on the provision of S. 2 of the same Act which provides that : "Nothing herein contained shall affect - (a) the capacity of any person to act in the following matters (namely) - Marriage, Dower, Divorce, and Adoption;......" The question really is whether the expression "the capacity of any person to act in the following matters" covers the capacity of a person to bring a suit in these matters. I do not see any reason why the language used in S. 2 should be restricted by the Court. The law as regards majority puts certain restraints against acts by certain persons and where the Legislature has thought fit to remove these restrictions in certain matters, there is no justification for widening the field of the restriction. This question came up for consideration before this Ct. in the case of Nakestan Bibi v. Habibar Rahaman, 50 CWN 689, and it was held that : "the words "capacity to act" are wide enough to include in it the institution of a suit by a minor, who under her personal law may have attained majority." I respectfully agree with this decision. 4. Once it is held that the provisions of S. 3 of the Majority Act are not applicable, it is not disputed that by her personal law, this girl having attained the age of 15 years has attained majority. Therefore, a suit by her without a next friend is not against the provisions of O. 32, R. 1, Civ. P. C. 5. A point was raised by the learned Advocate for the opposite party that if a person under 18 years is in this manner allowed to institute a suit without a next friend, difficulties may arise on the question of her engagement of lawyers on her behalf. Though it does not seem to be necessary for the purpose of this application to decide this question, I may indicate my view that, if she is in law a major person in all matters regarding marriage, dower, divorce and adoption, her engagement as a major of a lawyer in suits in these matters should present no difficulty. 6. I hold, therefore, that the learned Munsif acted illegally in the exercise of jurisdiction in ordering the plaint to be taken off the file. 6. I hold, therefore, that the learned Munsif acted illegally in the exercise of jurisdiction in ordering the plaint to be taken off the file. His order is set aside and he is directed to dispose of the case according to law. 7. The Rule is made absolute. The petitioner is entitled to get the costs of this Rule from the opposite party. Rule made absolute.