An adult party cannot avoid an award on the ground of non-compliance with Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the minor party has not made any objection against the award and the award is in their favor.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This application in revision by the plaintiffs is directed against an order dated 6-7-54 of the Subordinate Judge, second Court, Chapra, affirming an order dated 27-11-53 of the learned Munsif of Gopalganj, confirming the award and directing a decree to be passed on its basis.

2. The circumstances under which the pre-sent application arises may shortly be stated as follows : A title suit was filed by the plaintiffs petitioners for a declaration that the disputed land was the kasht land of petitioner No. 1, that the defendants had no right in it, and, therefore, the petitioners asked also for confirmation of possession, or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession.

To this suit there were several defendants, of whom defendants 9. and 10, who are opposite parties 8 and 9, were minors. On 18-3-53 at the in- stance of the parties an application was filed for referring the matter to a sole arbitrator. To this application for reference the guardian-ad-litem of minor defendants 9 and 10 also joined, but no sanction of the court, as required by Order 32, Rule 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, was obtained for making the reference. On 18-6-53 the Arbitrator filed his award in court.

This award was in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs petitioners thereafter filed objections to the award on several grounds. One of such grounds was that as no permission of the Court had been, obtained, as required by Order 32, Rule 7, of the Code, by the guardian-ad-litem of the minor defendants 9 and 10, the award was illegal, and this is the question with which we are concerned in the present application.

3. The learned Munsif held that as the Arbitrator found the disputed land, which was IB, 15K. 10 1/4dh. as belonging to the defendants, and to be in their possession, and has accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs suit, the award appeared prima facie beneficial to the minors. He further found that the defendants had already filed a petition that the award should be confirmed, and as such he was satisfied that the award was beneficial to the minors. He, therefore, rejected the objection of the plaintiffs, and confirmed the award, and made it a rule of the Court, and directed a decree to be passed on the basis of the award.

4. The plaintiffs went up in appeal against the above order to the District Judge, and the appeal was ultimately heard by the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Chapra. He held that, parties, other than a minor, are bound by an award, and it is open only to a minor to avoid it, if he so chooses, and as such it is not open to the plaintiffs, who are bound by the award, to ask for setting aside the award on the ground of non-compliance of Order 32, rule 7, of the Code. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs, affirming the deci- sion of the first court, confirming the award.

5. In the present civil revision the only point which has been pressed on my attention by Mr. A. S. Sinha, appearing for the petitioners, is that as admittedly the mandatory provisions of Order 32, Rule 7, of the Code, were not complied with, alj the pro-ceedings founded on the reference made on 18-3-53 are void, even though the minors themselves have not made any objection against the award.

6. The sole question for determination in the present application, therefore, is, can the plaintiffs, who are bound by the award, avoid it on the ground of non-compliance of o. 32, Rule 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the minors themselves have made no grievance of it, rather they have asked for its confimance and the award is in their favour?

7. Several decisions have been cited at the bar by Mr. A. S. Sinha appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. A. B. N. Sinha, appearing for the opposite parties, in support of their respective contentions. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties are : Deo Narayan Singh V/s. Siabar Singh, AIR 1952 Pat 461 (A), Gopal Chou-dhary V/s. Mt. Sundari, AIR 1955 Pat 277