The provisions of Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which require the court's leave for a guardian-ad-litem to enter into a compromise on behalf of a minor, are mandatory and that non-compliance with these provisions renders the compromise voidable at the instance of the minor.

B. D. Agarwal, J.

1. RESPONDENT no. 1 brought a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain immovable property. Applicant no. 3 besides applicant nos. 1 and 2 and respondents nos. 2 and 3 were defendants to the suit. Applicant nos. 1 and 2 and respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of applicant no. 3. Applicant nos. 1 and 2 are minors. An application had been made for the plaintiff to appoint a guardian-ad-litem for applicant nos. 1 and 2. Notice was issued to the minors as well as to the proposed guardian, namely, their mother. The notice was served by the endorsement of refusal. On March 31, 1982, a compromise was entered into between the parties whereby it was stipulated that the sale was to be executed as per terms of the agreement of transfer. On the same date the court below made an order appointing applicant no. 3. as the guardian-ad-litem for applicant nos. 1 and 2. This was followed by leave granted to applicant no. 3 to enter into the compromise on behalf of the said minors. The compromise was recorded and a decree passed in terms thereof including against the minors. An objection was taken later for the applicant nos. 1 and 2 to avoid the compromise on ground that there had been no compliance duly made to the requirements under Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The objection was rejected by the court below on 24-11-1982 and aggrieved against the same the applicants have preferred this revision.

2. LEARNED counsel for the applicants contended that in making the impugned order dated March 31, 1982, the court below has not made compliance with the requirements under Rule 7 of Order 32, Civil Procedure Code. Rule 7 reads as under :-

"Agreement or Compromise by next friend or Guardian for the suit-(1) No next friend or guardian for the suit shall, without the leave of the Court, expressly recorded in the proceedings enter into any agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor with reference to the suit in which he acts as next friend or guardian. (1-A) Any application for leave under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend or the guardian for the suit, as the case may be, and also, if the minor is represented by a pleader, by the certificate of the pleader, to the effect that the agreement or compromise proposed is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor; Provided that the opinion so expressed, whether in the affidavit or in the certificate shall not preculde the Court from examining whether the agreement or compromise proposed is for the benefit of the minor. (2) Any such agreement or compromise entered into without the leave of the Court so recorded shall be voidable against all parties other than the minor".

Sub-rule (1-A) to Rule 7 has been introduced by the Central Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Upon a perusal of the order dated 31st March, 1982, it would appear that having appointed applicant no. 3 as the guardian for the minors the court below directed on the application made for the plaintiff as under;

"29-C2 is an application by the plaintiffs praying that defendant no. 5 be permitted to verify the compromise on behalf of the minor defendants 3 and 4. Allowed. 26-A. Compromise filed and verified by the parties in open court today. Order. The suit is decreed in terms of the compromise Paper 26-A shall form part of the decree."

Sub-rule (1) or Rule 7 of Order 32 requires that there be leave granted by the court and the same be expressly recorded in the proceedings where the compromise be said to be entered into for and on behalf of the minors. The contention for the respondents is that there is leave granted in this case. To my mind it is not enough for the purpose of this sub-rule that the Court records an order to the effect that the guardian-ad-litem was being permitted to enter into compromise for the minors. There has to be some indication from the order that the court below has taken into consideration the relevant aspects before the leave is