Narayan, J.

1. This application is directed against an order of Mr. R. P. Sinha, Subordinate Judge, Gaya, by which he refused to re-hear Mortgage Suit NO 9 of 1946 against some of the defendants. The situation which has arisen in this case is a somewhat peculiar one, and such a situation would not have arisen if the Subordinate Judge who passed the preliminary decree in the suit would have acted with care and circumspection. The suit was a suit to enforce several mortgage bonds, and there were two sets of defendants, the first set being the members of the mortgagors family and the second set being the subsequent transferees with regard to the mortgaged properties Defendants 6, 7 and 10 out of the defendants first party were minors, and while defendants 6 and 7 were described as minors under the guardianship of their respective fathers who also were the defendants in the suit, defendant 10 was described as a minor under the guardianship of his brother who was defendant 9 in the suit On 12th November 1946, the plaintiffs and the major defendants 2 to 5 filed a petition of compromise with a prayer that the suit be disposed of in terms of the com-promise petition. Before that d