The central legal point established in the judgment is the Court's duty to ensure proper procedure, including ascertaining the plaintiff's desire upon reaching majority, and the necessity of regularizing proceedings and giving notice to parties.

Kinkhede, A J C—I think this revision must be allowed. The 2nd Glass Subordinate Judge No. 1, Akola, must understand that there are very grave responsibilities devolving on him by virtue of his office as the presiding officer of a Court of justice. He must bear in mind that there is something like procedure laid down by law for the proper disposal of a case and that he is bound to respect it and cannot act arbitrarily and whimsically as he pleases. The applicant is the widow of the original plaintiff Shrikisan; on his death, she was placed on record as his heir and legal representative (vide order-sheet dated 5th September 1922.) Her age then was 14 as the amendment in the title of the suit shows. The reference to the arbitration was made on her behalf by her next friend as per application dated 29th October 1925, when she was still a minor. How far the reference could be made by a minor's next friend without the leave of the Court expressly recorded in the proceedings was a question which had an important bearing on the validity 'of the award. Similarly, how far the manner in which the enquiry was held by the arbitrator affected the validity of reference and of the award was also a matter worthy of consideration : Sanyasi Rao v. Venkata Rao, 1923 AIR(Mad) 301.

2. She attained majority some time in 1926, i.e., during the pendency of the suit and necessarily of the arbitration proceeding. Nobody took care to ascertain just then from her whether she desired to continue the suit, as soon as she attained majority. This necessarily involved the question whether she desired to continue the arbitration proceedings upon the reference made during her minority. There was thus a failure of duty on the part of the next friend within the meaning of Rule 9, Order 32, Civil P.C. and it was the duty of the Court to remove the next friend on that account : Doraswami Pillai v. Thungaswami Pillai,1904 27 ILR(Mad) 377.

3. In any case, there was or could be no doubt that at the date of the award which is dated 30th November 1926, and which was filed into Court on 1st December 1926, she had attained majority and it was the duty of the pleader engaged by the next friend to bring the fact to the notice of the Court at once and then her next friend should have been discharged after notice as required by Order 32, Rule 12(5), Civil P.C. She had the option to make her own election, either to go on with the suit and accept the award, or to repudiate the same wholly or partially. On such election being made, the title of the suit had to be first corrected; thereafter, the proceedings for filing the award, and passing a decree in terms thereof, or for superseding the reference, or remitting the award etc. had to be commenced. Until the proceedings pending before the Court were regularized and brought into conformity with law, and, plaintiff who had attained majority was properly shown on the record as willing to carry on the litigation to a termination in her own name, I may say the Court was not justified in calling upon her to file her objections, if any, to the filing of the award. Id fact, it was the duty of the Court to first put the house, so to say, in proper order, as a preliminary to the reception of the award; but the procedure followed by the learned Judge is so materially irregular that the decree passed by him without serving notice and following the proper procedure is vitiated, and it must be set aside. If he had cared to turn his eyes to para. 10, Schedule 2, he would have at once known the requirements of law which he was bound to comply with. He had to see whether the arbitrator had filed the award in Court together with any depositions and documents which have been taken and proved before him.

4. He would also have been able to see therein the imperative provision for giving notice of the filing to the parties. Article 158, Lim. Act, also makes this clear. There is a deplorable dereliction of duty on the Judge's part which constitut