JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Certain plots of village Balrampur, pargana Miranpur, Tahsil and district Sultanpur, which have been specified in para 2 of the petition, were recorded in the basic year in the name of Maharaj Din and since no objections were filed by any one against the basic year entry, it was allowed to continue and chak No. 23 was proposed in his favour. It was at this stage, i.e. after the issue of C.H. Form-23, that opposite party No. 3, who was the wife of Maharaj Din, filed objection dated 18-10-75 (Annexure-3) against the basic year entry. She claimed that plots in dispute belonged to her exclusively as those plots had come down to her from her father. Subsequent to the filing of these objections, Maharaj Din, husband of opposite party No. 3, died. Petitioner who is the adopted son of Maharaj Din and opposite party No. 3 was alone left in the field. He admittedly is a minor. 3. It may be stated that objections, which were filed by opposite party No. 3, were barred by time and consequently an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed by her. This application was allowed by the consolidation officer by his order dated 22-12-75 which is contained in Annexure-6. The delay in filing the objection was condoned. This order was challenged by the Petitioner in a revision which was filed by him through his next friend Sri. Shyam Lal. It was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 25-3-76 on the ground that Shyam Lal, who had acted as next friend of the Petitioner in that revision, had not disclosed his relationship with the Petitioner and, therefore, the revision filed by Shyam Lal, the so called next friend, was not maintainable. 4. The Petitioner then filed another revision in which the exact relationship of Shyam Lal with the Petitioner was mentioned. This revision was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 17-8-77 on the ground that since the earlier revision had already been dismissed as not maintainable, the second revision had also to be dismissed. 5. The Petitioner has now come up in this Court in a writ petition. Notice of this petition has been served on opposite party No. 3 by publication. 5. The Petitioner has now come up in this Court in a writ petition. Notice of this petition has been served on opposite party No. 3 by publication. She has however, not put in appearance and has not filed a counter-affidavit. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed to consider the application of opposite party No. 3 which she had filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act along with her objections as the Petitioner admittedly was a minor and no body was appointed to act as his guardian. 7. Rule 14 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules requires that the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall appoint a guardian for a minor tenure holder. Such guardian shall be the natural guardian of the minor and if the natural guardian is not so appointed for which the reasons shall have to be recorded, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall then appoint the nearest male relative of the minor as his guardian. In the absence of the guardian appointed in the manner indicated in Rule 14 above, the consolidation authorities will have no jurisdiction to decide the controversy raised before them. 8. Opposite party No. 3 in her objection had impleaded the Petitioner as opposite party No. 2. He was described as a minor and Smt. Patau, his real mother, was mentioned as his guardian. She had not sued the Petitioner through his natural guardian who, in the instant case, would be Maharaj Din as Maharaj Din, according to the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, had adopted the Petitioner as his son. Since Maharaj Din on the date of the filing of the objection was alive, the Consolidation Officer should have appointed him as the guardian of the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14. In this view of the matter and in the absence of the appointment of the guardian in accordance with Rule 14(1), the Consolidation Officer does not appear to have had the jurisdiction to proceed to dispose of the application of opposite party No. 3 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. 9. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also committed an error of law in rejecting the revision filed by the Petitioner through his next friend Shyam Lal, on the ground that the exact relationship of the minor with Shyam Lal was not disclosed. 10. 9. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also committed an error of law in rejecting the revision filed by the Petitioner through his next friend Shyam Lal, on the ground that the exact relationship of the minor with Shyam Lal was not disclosed. 10. Order 32 Rule 1 of the CPC provides that every suit, by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who, in such suit, shall be called the next friend of the minor. This rule has been enacted for the sole purpose of providing "adequate safeguards" against the interest of the minor. The "next friend" contemplated by Rule 1 of Order 32 CPC (CPC) does not necessarily mean natural guardian. Any person who is major and is of sound mind can act as next friend of the minor provided he does not claim any interest adverse to the interest of the minor. 11. The principle contained in Order 32 Rule 1 CPC (CPC) can be appropriately invoked in the present case. Shyam Lal, who had acted as the next friend of the Petitioner in filing the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, was, therefore, not required under law to disclose the exact relationship with the Petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was clearly in error in rejecting that revision as not maintainable on that ground. Even the subsequent order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the second revision of the Petitioner was dismissed can also not be sustained. 12. In the result the petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which are contained in Annexures Nos. 6, 7 and 9, are hereby quashed. The case is remanded to the Consolidation Officer to dispose of the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made above. There will be no order as to costs.