JUDGMENT 1. THIS is a revisional application at the instance of the deft No. 1 and is directed against an order dated 2. 8. 80 passed in title Suit No. 201 of 1976 of the third court of the Munsif, at Tamluk by which the learned Munsif disposed of an issue in favour of the plaintiff opposite party No. 1. 2. THE plaintiff instituted the suit on 20. 9. 76 claiming himself to be sui juris. In paragraph 5 of the plaint the date of birth of the plaintiff, as pleaded, is 7. 4. 57. Subsequently the plaintiff filed an application for leave under Order 8 Rule 9 of the code of Civil Procedure enabling the plaintiff to file subsequent pleadings to state the date of birth to be 22. 4. 57 as per birth register. The leave having been granted by the Court below, the defendant No. 1 moved this Court in revision which was disposed of in December 1979. In disposing of the said Revisional application, the learned court below was directed to take up as a preliminary issue the question whether the plaintiff attained majority on or before She filing of the present suit, Thereafter the matter went back to the court below and the learned Munsif took up issue No. 10 being the issue on the point for consideration. In disposing of this issue the learned Munsif referred the certified copy of the birth register of the plaintiff a sale deed dated 28. 2. 58 and two admission registers relating to the admission of the plaintiff in school (Vide Exts A and B ). Upon a consideration of those document the learned Munsif found. that the plaintiff had attained majority on the date of the filing of the suit and disposed of the issue in favour of the plaintiff being aggrieved, the defendant No. 1 moved the present revisional application and obtained the Rule. 3. THE learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Munsif acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in so far as he had referred to certain documents, namely, the birth register, the sale deed dated 28. 2, 58 and an admission register of the year 1964 which were not legally tendered in evidence or formally proved. THE learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Munsif acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in so far as he had referred to certain documents, namely, the birth register, the sale deed dated 28. 2, 58 and an admission register of the year 1964 which were not legally tendered in evidence or formally proved. He, therefore, complained that the learned Munsif ought not to have referred to those documents and preferred them to the documents proved by the defendant, namely Exts. A and B incoming to his conclusion. 4. MR. Sahu in opposing this revisional application contends that even without going into the correctness or otherwise of the finding of the learned Munsif there is no dispute that the plaintiff has in the meantime attained majority and the question whether the plaintiff was or was not a minor at the date of the institution of the suit has now become redundant because the plaintiff is. entitled to continue with the suit on his own without a next friend being appointed on his behalf. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the cases of Kesav Deo Tulshan V. Jagadish Prasad tulshan. AIR 1973 Cal. 83 and Kamelammal Vs A. M. Shanmugam and others. AIR 1976 Mad. 235 . In the Calcutta case the facts were slightly different in so far as there at the time of institution of the suit the plaintiff who was a minor and was duly represented by a next friend was discharged on the statement of the minor that he has attained majority, It was held that if ultimately it transpires that he actually did not attain majority at the date of the discharge of the next friend, any decree passed in such a suit in favour of the minor under such circumstances will not make the decree a nullity. The Madras case decides a point which is more akin to the point involved in the present Revisional application. It was observed there that there is a difference between a suit being dismissed and a plaint being taken off the file, and all that order 32 Rule 2 contemplates is a plaint being taken off the file on an application for the said purpose being made by the defendant. It was observed there that there is a difference between a suit being dismissed and a plaint being taken off the file, and all that order 32 Rule 2 contemplates is a plaint being taken off the file on an application for the said purpose being made by the defendant. There is a difference between the two classes of suits instituted by a minor, one knowing that he was a minor and he was in competent to institute a suit without a next friend and yet filing a suit with a view to deceive the Court or with some ulterior purpose and the other, a minor filing the suit without knowing or realising his minority. It was observed that in the former case the suit is being dismissed and in the latter case the plaint is taken off the file. In the present case before me, the plaintiff in the suit filed it as having attained majority before the date of filing. Therefore it is not a suit where the plaintiff instituted the same with full knowledge that he was a minor and was, as such, in competent to institute the same and yet instituted it with some ulterior motive. Therefore the suit could not have been dismissed. If, at all, the plaint could have been taken off the file if the petitioner had preferred an application for such a purpose under order 32 rule 2. But such a course was not adopted by the petitioner. 5. THE facts in the Madras case were similar in nature. It was observed that assuming that even without the application on the part of the petitioner the plaint should have been taken off the file, since the suit was continued by the plaintiff after his attaining majority, there is no difficulty in treating the proceeding before the trial court as if the plaint was taken off the file but subsequently represented after the plaintiff attained majority and there is no impediment to so treating the proceedings because the petitioner will not be damnified or prejudiced by such a conclusion, since the question of limitation does not arise. Agreeing with the view so expressed, i find that even if the finding of the learned Munsif on Issue No. 10 was arrived at upon a consideration of certain materials which were not legally before him and that the order is therefore revisable, to send the matter back for a reconsideration because even assuming the fact in favour of the petitioner, the plaintiff having attained majority in the meantime, the suit can be competently continued by him now and validity disposed of according to taw. In that view of the matter, 1 am not inclined to interfere with the order. 6. THE Revisional application is thus disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. Let the order be communicated to the court below forthwith and the records sent down at once. The learned Munsif is directed to dispose of the suit which has already become pretty old as expeditiously as possible. Application disposed of.