JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. Both the parties agree that it may be decided at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Annexure 6, the order passed by Member of Revenue Board dated 16-10-78. The Member of Revenue Board has rejected the appeal, which has been filed by the next friend Shri Kashi Ram. The only ground for the rejection has been made is that of 'vakalatnama', instead, next friend the minor has signed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to annexure 7 prepared in July, 1982 on the basis of annexure 6. 3. In the case of Ali Ahmed v. Said Main and another reported in All India Reporter 1924 Lahore P. 188 , their Lordship has held "where during the course of suit, the court finds that plaintiff is a minor and has filed the suit without a next friend, the proper procedure is not to reject the plaint but to suspend all proceedings and to allow sufficient time to enable the minor to have himself properly represented in the suit by a next friend." 4. This court in Division Bench judgment of Bachh Raj v. Sunder Mal, reported in ILR (1963) 13 Raj , has held that "in taking this view, we are clearly supported by the language of O.XXXII Rr. 2 and 3, Civil Procedure Code Order XXXII, r. 2, CPC provides as "where a suit is instituted by or on behalf of a minor without a next friend, the defendant may apply to have the plaint taken off the file, with costs to be paid by the pleader or other person by whom it was presented. (2) Notice of such application shall be given to such person, and the court, after hearing his objections (if any) may make such order in the matter as it thinks fit. The word 'may make such order in the matter as it thinks fit' appearing in sub-sec. (2) should be fairly construed to empower a court to permit the suit instituted by or on behalf of friend of the minor named and brought on record to conduct the suit on behalf of the minor. In our opinion, it will not be correct to conclude that the rule contemplates merely an order taking of the plaint. (2) should be fairly construed to empower a court to permit the suit instituted by or on behalf of friend of the minor named and brought on record to conduct the suit on behalf of the minor. In our opinion, it will not be correct to conclude that the rule contemplates merely an order taking of the plaint. On a fair construction it does contemplate an alternative order for rectification of the error and the continuance of suit. Similarly, r. 3 shows that the plaint need not necessarily mention the guardian ad litem of the minor defendant. Sub-rule (1) clearly provides that where the defendant is a minor the court, on being satisfied of the fact of his minority, shall appoint a proper person to be guardian for the suit for such minor. In fact, according to the true construction of rule 3, there can be guardian ad litem of the minor only under the orders of the court. On the basis of the language of r. 2 and r. 3 we feel inclined to take the view that subsequent steps taken by a party to secure the proper representation of the minor, whether he is a plaintiff or a defendant, can validate the earlier irregularities, if any, in the mention of the next friend of guardian ad litem of the minor. In our opinion, the learned counsel for the respondent cannot deprive such assistance from the observations made in Rashid Un-Nisa v. Mohammed Ismail Khan ." 5. The learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, could not cite any law having contrary view. 6. In the result, I am inclined to accept the writ petition and quash the other Annexure 6 dated 16.10.78, passed by the learned Member of the Revenue Board and direct that appeal should be heard according to law. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that by now the petitioner is major and as such there is no necessity of hearing the case through the next guardian. This point may he examined at their level. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, accepted. 8. Parties will bear their own costs. *******