a[ * * * * * *]

Assuming, however, that it is such an applica­tion, Mr Bobdes further contention is that the lower Court ought to have granted the necessary leave under Order 32, rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs nos. 3, 4 and 5 and defen-

a. Portion of the judgment omitted is not ma­terial to this report - Ed.dants nos. 6 and 7 are still minors. No evidence whatsoever was led in the lower Court to show how the arrangement mentioned in the application no. 20 was in the interest and for the benefit of the minor parties. The learned trial Judge relied upon one circumstance, namely, plaintiffs offer to exchange their share for that of defendants nos. 4 to 7 and to pay the latter an additional sum of Rs. 25,000/-, and concluded that the plaintiffs share including those of the minor plaintiffs was prima facie inferior and that there appeared no special benefit to the minor plaintiffs by the pro­posed compromise. In the absence of any other evidence, I cannot say that the conclusion thus reached by the trial Judge is unjustified. It is significant to note that defendants Nos. I, and 8 to 10 in their application no. 30 describe the share allotted to defendants