Order 32, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code does not require that the application for permission to enter into an agreement for reference to arbitration on behalf of a minor be made simultaneously with the application for reference itself. It is sufficient if the application is made before the court makes the order of reference.

Sarjoo Prasad, J.

1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs and is directed against an order refusing to set aside an award. Mr. Rati Kant Choudhury who appears on behalf of the appellants has put forward two contentions before us. First is that the award is invalid because it was passed upon a reference to which minors were parties but there was no proper compliance with the provisions of Order 32, Rule 7 granting permission to the guardians of the minors to enter into the agreement for reference to arbitration. The second point urged on behalf of the appellants is that the case should be remanded because no opportunity was given to the plaintiffs to examine the arbitrator who gave the award. I shall deal with the two objections seriatim.

2. It appears that plaintiffs 3 and 4 who are the sons of plaintiff 1 were minors and they were represented by their father and natural guardian plaintiff 1 in the suit. On the side of the defendants, defendant 2, the son of defendant 1, was a minor and he was represented in the suit by a pleader guardian ad litem. On 3-7.1947 an application was filed praying that the suit be referred to the arbitration of one Babu Janki Raman Prasad Misser. On that date it appears that there was no application filed on behalf of the minor plaintiffs and the defendant for permission to enter into the compromise. On 7-7-1947 the next friend of the minor plaintiffs and the guardian ad litem of the minor defendant filed a petition praying for permission to enter into the agreement to refer the matter to arbitration. On that petition having been filed the Court recorded an order granting permission and thereafter the Court passed an order for referring the case to the arbitration of the arbitrator concerned. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there has not been sufficient compliance with Order 32, Rule 7 first because in granting permission the Court merely observed "permitted" without recording any reasons for granting such permission. In the second place he submits that this application for leave to enter into the agreement for reference to arbitration should have been made along with the application itself which was filed on 3-7-1947 and that not having been done the order is illegal. In my opinion both these contentions are without any substance. Under Order 82, Rule 7 no particular formula is necessary and the Court is not bound to give reasons for granting permission to the guardian ail litem to enter into the agreement for reference or for compromise. If any authority is needed for this purpose we may refer to a decision of this Court in Ishan Chandra V/s. Nilratan, 2 pat. 538; (A. I. R. (10) 1923 Pat. 375) which has been followed in a number of, other cases by this Court. Kulwant Sahay J. who delivered the judgment in that case observed as follows;

"In order to attract the provisions of Order 32, Rule 7, Civil P.C. It is enough to show that the attention of the Court was directly called to the fact that a minor was a party to the compromise and that the leave of the Court was obtained on petition or in some way not open to doubt. Ho particular formula is necessary to be used by the Court in order to grant the leave and when it is shown that an application was made by the guardian to the Court asking (or leave to enter into the compromise and the Court makes a note of that application and passes a decree in terms of the com-promise, It must fee held that the leave of the Court was expressly recorded within the meaning of Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code."

The learned Judge relied upon a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Manohar Lal V/s. Jadunath Singh, 33 I. A. 128: (28 ALL. 585 P. C.) for the principle which he laid down in that decision. I with great respect concur with the view expressed by his Lordship in that case.

3. In this ease there was an application filed on behalf of the guardian ad litem as well as the guardian of the minors to enter into the agre