D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the counsel for the petitioners. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondents. ( 2 ) THIS revision is filed challenging the order and decree dated 4-3-2003 passed by the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, nandikotkur in I. A. No. 34/2003 in O. S. No. 304/2002. By the impugned order, the court below allowed the petition filed by the guardian to come to on record to represent the plaintiffs as next friend and to make the necessary amendments in the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in the suit filed this revision petition. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed suit against the defendants for permanent injunction. In the suit, the plaintiff No. 1 claiming to be the major, represented the 2nd plaintiff who is a minor. The defendants filed written statement and basing on the cause title of the suit, at the outset, contended that since the 1st plaintiff was also a minor as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit itself was not maintainable. Upon noticing the said averment in the written statement, the grandmother of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the present I. A. under Order 32 Rule 1 and order 6 Rule 17 of C. P. C. to permit her to represent the plaintiffs as next friend and to make the necessary amendments. As stated above, the court below allowed the petition. ( 4 ) THE counsel for the petitioners - defendnats contended that as on the date of filing of the suit not only the 2nd plaintiff, but also the 1st plaintiff was a minor and, therefore the suit itself ought not have been entertained. He contended that since the suit was signed and filed by incompetent persons, the court below ought to have rejected the suit at the threshold. He contended that by the present amendment, even cause of action also would change. He further contended that since the suit is defective at the institution itself, the same cannot be permitted to be cured at the later point of time. He contended that by the present amendment, even cause of action also would change. He further contended that since the suit is defective at the institution itself, the same cannot be permitted to be cured at the later point of time. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the above contentions of the counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to look into Rules 1,2 and 3 of order 32 of C. P. C. They are extracted as under for ready reference:1. Minor to sue by next friend: 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. Explanation:. . . . . . . . . 2. Where suit is instituted without next friend, plaint to be taken off the file: (1) 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 objection (if any), may make such order in the matter as it thinks fit. 2-A. . . . . . . 3. Guardian for the suit to be appointed by court for minor defendant: (1) 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. (2) An order for the appointment of a guardian for the suit may be obtained upon application in the name and on behalf of the minor or by the plaintiff. (3 ). . . . . . . . . (4 ). . . . . . . . . (4-A ). . . . . . . . . (5 ). . . . . . . . . ( 6 ) FROM the above it is clear that Rule 1 of order 32 postulates that suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person called his next friend. . . . . . . (4-A ). . . . . . . . . (5 ). . . . . . . . . ( 6 ) FROM the above it is clear that Rule 1 of order 32 postulates that suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person called his next friend. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of order 32 stipulates that if the suit is instituted by a minor without his next friend, the defendnt may apply to the court to have the plaint taken off the file and for costs. Sub- rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 32 contemplates that notice of the application filed by the defendant shall be given to such person (i. e. , to the counsel or other person by whom the suit was presented) and after hearing the objections, if any, pass suitable orders. Here itself it is pertinent to note that if the suit is instituted by a minor without next friend, that does not empower the court to reject the plaint suo motu. However, on an application by the defendant to take off the plaint on the ground of minority of the plaintiff, the court has to necessarily issue a notice to the person as stated above, and pass suitable orders as it thinks fit. ( 7 ) RULE 3 of Order 32 of C. P. C. postulates that if 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, upon an application in the name and on behalf of the minor or by the plaintiff. Here also it is pertinent to note that for appointment of a guardian for a minor defendant, Rule 3 of order 32 provides for two modes viz. , (1) appointment of guardian can be made if an application is made in the name and on behalf of the minor and (2) upon an application by the plaintiff. But such a facility is not expressly given for the appointment of a guardian in the case of a minor plaintiff. , (1) appointment of guardian can be made if an application is made in the name and on behalf of the minor and (2) upon an application by the plaintiff. But such a facility is not expressly given for the appointment of a guardian in the case of a minor plaintiff. Rule 2 of Order 32 envisages that if a minor without next friend files the suit, the defendnat may apply to the court to have plaint taken off the file and the court after giving notice on such application, pass appropriate orders. However, the courts in india have taken care of this situation and in the interest of justice, gave a harmonious interpretation. The relevant judgments in this regard will be referred to in the course of the judgment. ( 8 ) COMING to the case on hand, it is to be noted that for taking off the plaint from the file as per sub Rule 1 of Rule 2 of Order 32, of c. P. C. , the defendant did not make any application. However, he has taken the ground of minority of the 1st plaintiff in the written statement and immediately noticing the said averment, the grandmother of the plaintiffs, filed the present petition. The defendants filed their counter to this petition and sought for dismissal of the suit itself. The court below taking into account the material available on record and the facts and circumstances, allowed the I. A. and thereby permitted the grandmother of the plaintiffs to come on record to represent the plaintiffs as next friend and also to make the necessary amendments. However, it is not the case of the defendnats in their written statement that the suit was filed by 1st plaintiff, who is a minor, with any mala fide intention or with ulterior motive or to deceive the court. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, as contemplated under sub rule (2) of Rule 2, of Order 32, in my considering view, the court below is perfectly justified in passing the impugned order. ( 10 ) IN a decision reported in kamalammal v. A. M. Shanmugham the high Court of Madras considering Rule 2 of order 32, of C. P. C. observed that the said rule does not contemplate a suit instituted by such a minor plaintiff shall be dismissed on the ground of his minority and he being not represented by next friend. The High Court of Madras drew a distinction between the suit being taken off the file and the plaint being dismissed. It was held at paragraph no. 3 that there is basic distinction between two classes of suits instituted by a minor, one knowing that he was a minor and he was incompetent to institute a suit without the next friend and yet filing a suit with a view to deceive the court or with some ulterior purposes and the other, a minor filing the suit without knowing or realizing his minority and in the former case the suit being dismissed and in the latter case the plaint being taken off the file. ( 11 ) IN the instant case it is to be seen that the 1st plaintiff without having knowledge that he was actually minor, filed the suit as a major representing the second minor plaintiff. It appears that the basis for the asumption of the plaintiff that he was a major, was the certificate obtained from the school. It appears to be not correct and, therefore, immediately after noticing the said defect pointed out by the defendants in their written statement, the grandmother of the plaintiffs came forward with the present application. As already noted above, it was not the case of the defendants that the 1st plaintiff filed the suit describing himself as major as on the date of filing of the suit, with any mala fide intention or with some ulterior motive or to deceive the court. Therefore, as per the distinction drawn by the High Court of Madras in the decision cited 2 supra, the suit cannot be dismissed and at the most, the plaint can be taken off the file. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, the bona fides on the part of the plaintiffs could be seen from the immediate steps taken by the grandmother of the plaintiffs after noticing the defect pointed out in the written statement. Therefore, the question of taking off the plaint from the file also does not arise. Further significant factor to be noted is that the defendants did not make any application as contemplated under sub-rule (1) of rule 2 of Order 32 to take the plaint off the file, except taking the objection in his written statement. Therefore, the question of taking off the plaint from the file also does not arise. Further significant factor to be noted is that the defendants did not make any application as contemplated under sub-rule (1) of rule 2 of Order 32 to take the plaint off the file, except taking the objection in his written statement. ( 13 ) IN the decision reported in Deshav deo v. Jagadish Prasad a single Judge of calcutta High Court while consideriang the scope of Order 32, Rules 2 and 5 held that discretion has been given to court to make such order as it would think fit. It was held that the institution of the suit by the minor is not, ipso facto, bad and the plaint does not become defective and it remains a good and an effective one. It was further pointed out that when a suit was instituted by a minor, it is open for the defendnat to come up before this court by way of making an application under Rule 2 of Order 32 and in such circumstances, the court may direct the plaint to be taken off the file. As already pointed out, in this case, no such application was made by the defendant and on the other hand, the grandmother of the plaintiffs with due promptitude came up with an application to come on record as next friend, to represent the plaintiffs. In the said judgment (cited 2 supra), it was specifically held that order 32 has been enacted for the purpose of protecting the interest of the minor without causing any prejudice to the interest of the defendant. Referring to Rules 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 of Order 32 it was further held that the court s duty is to render assistance to the minor plaintiff who is so left alone, by allowing some other person to come forward and to be replaced in the place and stead of the outgoing next friend and that until the said irregularity or defect in procedure, caused by reason of such vacancy is cured, the court may stay such proceedings. At paragraph No. 16 of the judgment the learned single Judge of Calcutta High Court further held as under:"in my opinion, the provision of Rule 2 of Order 32 has been enacted for the purpose that in case a suit instituted by or on behalf of a minor without a next friend the court acting under subrule (2) might be in a position to regularize the irregularity as soon as it is brought to the notice of the court. If the defect in procedure cannot or should not be cured in the facts and circumstances of the case, then in the interest of the minor the court is likely to order that the plaint be taken off the file. " ( 14 ) FINALLY in the above judgment, it was held that the irregularity in instituting the suit does not make the suit wholly bad but makes it a defect in procedure and such defect can be corrected only when the defendant makes an application under Rule (2) of order 32. ( 15 ) APART from the above, as already noted, Rule 3 of Order 32 of C. P. C. enjoins the court to appoint a proper person as guardian, if the defendant is found to be minor upon an application filed by or on behalf of the minor or by the plainitff. Therefore, it is clear that when the defendant was found by the court itself to be a minor, option is given to both the minor defendant and somebody on his behalf and also to the plaintiff to make an application seeking appointment of guardian. When tha benefit is extended explicitly to the defendant, why the same benefit should not be extended to the plaintiff, when he was found to be a minor? ( 16 ) FROM the judgment referred to supra and in the light of benefit given to the minor defendants, in my considered view, duty is cast upon the court to construe the provision under Rule 2 of Order 32 in right perspective and interpret the said provision liberally so as to protect the interest of the minor plaintiff, unless and until it is catgorically established by the defendant by way of making an application that the plaint was instituted by the minor with ulterior motive. ( 17 ) IN fact in the decision relied on by the court below in Bacha Raj v. Sunder Mal, a division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court considering the scope of Order 32 Rules 2 and 3 held 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 or guardian-ad-litem of the minor. Further interpreting the words may make such order in the matter as it thinks fit occurring in sub rule (2) of Rule 2 of order 32, the Division Bench held at paragraph No. 7 as under:"the words, "may make such order in the matter as it thinks fit" appearing in sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of O. 32, Civil p. C. , should be fairly construed to empower a court to permit the suit instituted by or on behalf of a minor to be continued after taking steps to see that a next friend of the minor is named and brought on record to conduct the suit on behalf of the minor. It is not correct to conclude that the rule contemplates merely an order taking off the plaint. On a fair construction, it does contemplate an alternative order for rectification of the error and the continuance of the suit. " ( 18 ) IN Rarichan v. Manakkal Raman a division Bench of the Madras High Court interpreting Order 32, Rule 2 of C. P. C. held that the said procedure is applicable only when on the fact of the plaint the plaintiff appears to be a minor. It was further held that if on an issue raised and tried in the case, the court finds that the plaintiff is a minor it should not dismiss the suit at once but should allow a reasonable time for a next friend to come on record and go on with the suit and it is only if no one comes forwad, that it should reject the plaint. The Division bench of the Madras High Court also considered an earlier judgment in Sankaran nambi v. Davaki Antherjanom, wherein it was held that when a next friend has been appointed, the objection that the suit was originally by a minor without a next friend can no longer be urged. The Division bench of the Madras High Court also considered an earlier judgment in Sankaran nambi v. Davaki Antherjanom, wherein it was held that when a next friend has been appointed, the objection that the suit was originally by a minor without a next friend can no longer be urged. ( 19 ) THE quintessence of the above judgments is that the provisions under rule 2 of Order 32 are purely procedural in nature and the same shall not be reduced to the status of hypertechnicality. So long as the defect is curable and does not cause any prejudice to the defendant, provided that the suit was instituted by the minor not to deceive the court or with some ulterior motive, the endeavour of the court should always be to protect the interest of the minor and in that pursuit shall permit the parties to correct such defect. ( 20 ) COMING to the facts on hand, as already noted, when the defect as regards the minority of the 1st plaintiff has been pointed out by the defendant in the written statement, immediately the grandmother of the plaintiffs took care and filed petition to come on record and to carry out the necessary amendments and the court below by cogent reasons, allowed the petition. ( 21 ) THE counsel for the petitioners strangely contended that by allowing the present petition under Order 32, Rules 1 and 2 and permitting the amendment under order 6, Rule 17 of C. P. C. the cause of action also would change. This contention has no basis nor was it substantiated. As rightly pointed out by the court below, even after the allowing the present I. A. , the cause of action remains same i. e. , for permanent injunction and the next friend also wanted the cause of the action to remain same. Hence, the contention of the petitioners with regard to change in cause of the action is also rejected. ( 22 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.