ORDER This is an application for revision of the order passed by the Munsiff in Title Suit No. 123 of 1955 whereby he held that the plaintiff was not of unsound mind and the suit could not, therefore, be instituted by the next friend, and consequently ordered that the plaint be returned for amendment. 2 It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is a person of unsound mind since his birth and has got no independent will. This was denied by the contesting defendant No. 1. Both parties led evidence and it is undisputed that the plaintiff suffers from some impediment in speech, but it was admitted by the plaintiffs own witnesses that the plaintiff works on wages and the Assistant Surgeon (P.W. No. 1) who examined the plaintiff weakened the force of his evidence by admitting that he later doubted the correctness of his own certificate (Ext. 1). His further evidence goes to show that the theory of the plaintiff feigning cannot be ruled out. On the side of the defendant there was evidence to the contrary. 3 The learned Munsiff considered the evidence adduced by both the parties at length and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not of unsound mind. He, therefore, ordered that the plaint be returned for amendment. 4 An attempt was made before me to show that on the evidence, specially, the evidence of the Assistant Surgeon, the learned Munsiff should have concluded that the plaintiff was of unsound mind. As already seen, the learned Munsiff considered the evidence at length and gave reasons for not relying on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, and it cannot be said that those reasons are without any force. 5It is well-settled that where a Court has jurisdiction to determine a question and it determines that question, it cannot be said that it has acted illegally or with material irregularity because it has come to a wrong decision on Appellant question of fact. No case has thus been made out for setting. aside the order of the Munsiff even if what was urged on behalf of the petitioner were to be accepted as correct. 6 It was next urged that the order of the learned Munsiff for the return of the plaint for amendment was bad in law. In my opinion, the contention has no force. It has been held by Allahabad. aside the order of the Munsiff even if what was urged on behalf of the petitioner were to be accepted as correct. 6 It was next urged that the order of the learned Munsiff for the return of the plaint for amendment was bad in law. In my opinion, the contention has no force. It has been held by Allahabad. Calcutta, Madras and Lahore High Courts that when a suit is instituted by a next friend on behalf of a person alleged to be a minor and it is found that the plaintiff was not, in fact, a minor at the date of institution of the suit then the plaint should be returned for amendment (vide C P. C. Mulla, of 12th Edn., p. 1036). The same principle would clearly apply in the case where the plaintiff is not found to be of unsound mind. 7 The result is that the petition for revision fails and is rejected with costs. Revision rejected.