Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is defendant in Title Suit No. 109 of 2003, which was filed by opposite parties no.1 to 3 for partition of the suit property. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 6.7.2004, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Nalanda at Bihar-Sharif dismissed his petition for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code ofCivil Procedure. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner is the father of opposite party no. 4 (defendant) who has a wife (plaintiff no. 3) two minor sons (plaintiff no.1 and defendant no. 3) and a minor daughter (plaintiff no. 2). Learned counsel for the petitioner further avers that since the property in suit is the property of the ancestor of Ravindra Prasad Sinha, who is alive, his wife and daughter (plaintiffs no. 2, and 3) cannot file a suit for partition. He further claims that plaintiff no.1 has been impleaded through his mother (plaintiff no. 3) as natural guardian and next friend but in the presence of father, mother cannot be a guardian or next friend and hence the suit was not maintainable having been filed by the said persons and therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned court below to reject the plaint of the suit. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiffs-opposite parties submits that no objection regarding guardianship has been raised by the father of the minors and hence no other person, nor even the petitioner can be allowed to raise any such objection regarding the guardianship. He further claims that the learned court below has considered all aspects of the matter in detail and has passed the impugned order legally and properly. 6. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the petition fifed by the defendant-petitioner does not fulfil any of the grounds as prescribed under the said provision of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and hence the learned court below has rightly rejected the same. I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. However, the defendant-petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points including the points raised in this petition at the time of final hearing of the suit and the learned court below will decide the same in accordance with law without being prejudiced either by this order or by the order of the learned court below. 7. This civil revision is, accordingly, dismissed.