JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.11.2013 by which the application of 22 C filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint, as the guardian of minor plaintiff has not been properly appointed, has been rejected and a date has been fixed for disposal of the application for interim injunction. 3. So far as the application of the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC is concerned, the petitioner has filed the application on the ground that Mohit and Ashish, plaintiffs - 2 and 3 were minor but no application has been moved for appointment of their guardian. Accordingly the plaint was defective and it was liable to be rejected. The court below found that in the plaint Suraj, plaintiff-1 was shown as major and Mohit and Ashish, plaintiffs- 2 and 3 were shown as minor and their father Raj Narayan was appointed as their guardian. Therefore there was no defect in the plaint. The objection of the petitioner that no separate application has been given for appointment of the guardian has been rejected on the ground that no separate application is required under the law. 4. I have considered the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Order XXXII, Rule 1 CPC provides as follows : (1) Minor to sue by next friend.- Every suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who is such suit shall be called the next friend of the minor. Explanation. - In this Order, "minor" means a person who has not attained his majority within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act 1875 (9 of 1875), where the suit relates to any of the matters mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 2 of that Act or to any other matter. 6. Thus the only requirement for the minor plaintiff is that the plaint has to be filed through a next friend under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. In this case the plaint was filed by the father on behalf of minor child and there is no illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. 7. Thus the only requirement for the minor plaintiff is that the plaint has to be filed through a next friend under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. In this case the plaint was filed by the father on behalf of minor child and there is no illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. 7. So far as the order by which a date has been fixed for disposal of the interim injunction is concerned, the order was passed on 9.11.2013 and after such a long time it is being challenged. In the meantime the petitioner has filed a revision against the impugned order and has not permitted for disposal of the application of interim injunction accordingly no interference is required by this Court. 8. The writ petition has no merit it is dismissed.