( 1 ) THE present application is under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application has been filed on 6th January, 1976, and is concerned with a suit which was decided by compromise on 2nd May, 1975. The suit was for partition and other reliefs instituted by the plaintiff, Shrimati Vidyavati Bai against Shrimati Parkash Vati Devi and others. The plantiff was the first wife of the late Kanwar Krishna Chandra and the first defendant was the second wife. In the array of parties, Shri Mahesh Chandra son of the late Kanwar Krishna Chandra was shown as defendant No. 2 and Shrimati Usha Mahesh Chandra, his wife was shown as defendant No. 3, Defendants Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Kumari Vanita and Kunwar Raghav Chandra, the minor son and daughter of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were shown as defendants Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. The parties proposed a settlement by which the entire suit was compromised, but there being minor defendants, the leave of the Court was sought on behalf of the minor defendants. The application moved in this behalf was signed by the plaintiff herself and her counsel Mr. A. N. Goyal, Advocate, by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and also by the Advocate for the defendants, Mr. R. L. Tandon, Advocate. It was also signed by one Shri Madho Pershad as guarantor. Unfortunately, this application was signed by Shri Mahesh Chandra in his personal capacity and as guardian for minor defendants 4 and 5. It was not signed by Shrimati Usha Mahesh Chandra in her capacity as guardian-ad-litem. Undoubtedly, Shri Mahesh Chandra, defendant No. 2 was the natural guardian of his minor children and he rightly signed the application in this capacity, but, Shrimati Usha Mahesh Chandra did not sign the application in her capacity as guardian-ad-litem. In the application itself, in paragraph No. 1 it stated that defendant No. 2 was the natural guardian, father and guardian- ad-htem of defendants Nos. 4 and 5. There was apparently an accidental slip or omission by the parties in as much as they were under an erroneous impression that defendant No. 2 was also guardian-ad-litem of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 in addition to their being natural guardian. The Court record shows that there was an order passed by P. N. Khanna J. on 15th July, 1959, whereby he had appointed defendant No. 3 as gurdian-ad-litem of defendants Nos. 4 and 5.

( 2 ) ON the aforementioned application, I. A. . No. 1162/75 an order was passed by myself on 2nd May, 1975, granting defendant No. 2 leave to compromise the suit on behalf of the minor defendants, ln that order, I stated:-

"i have gone through the terms of the compromise and I find that those terms are to be benefit of the minors and are also beneficial to other parties. "i had noted before the quotation that the compromise was to the benefit of the minors, because two wills dated 24th April, 1965 and 25th February, 1966 was in question in the suit. In view of the fact that many transactions were under challenge in the suit, it seemed to be in the interest of the minors that the suit should be compromised. This largely was the ground on which the leave was granted. It is clearly apparent that the leave was granted to Shri Mahesh Chandra the natural guardian and not to Shrimati Usha Mahesh Chandra, guardian-ad-litem. Acting on the order, the parties then proceeded to accept the terms of the compremise and a judgment dated 2nd May, 1975, was passed by myself accepting the compromise and directing a decree to be passed in terms thereof as noted in the aforementioned judgment. I am informed that the decree has in fact not been drawn up yet.

( 3 ) THE present application, I. A. No. 37/76 has been moved to make necessary amendment in the orders and judgment passed on 2nd May, 1975, with a view to making them effective in respect of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 after permission had been granted to the guardian-ad-litem of those minor defendants. For the purpose of determining whether there has bee