R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by the trial Judge declaring a compromise invalid so far as plaintiff No. 3 was concerned.

( 2 ) IN Title Suit No. 145 of 1977 plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 7 to 11 entered into a compromise. Plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5 were minors. So, the guardian sought permission to sign the compromise petition on behalf of the minors. Permission having been granted, the guardian entered into the compromise. The compromise was recorded. Subsequently plaintiff No. 3 on attaining majority filed an application for recall of the compromise, so far as she was concerned, on the ground that the compromise had been fraudulently obtained and the requirements of O. 32, R. 7 of the Civil P. C. had not been complied with. She contended that new sub-rule (IA) of R. 7 of O. 32 mandatorily required that an application for leave under sub-rule (1) should be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend or guardian to the effect that the agreement or compromise proposed was in his opinion for the benefit of the minor. No such affidavit having been filed by the guardian, the application for leave was not in accordance with law and the permi