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