JUDGMENT

1. The only question that has been argued before us in this appeal is that the lower Court was not justified in ordering Babu Sri Ram, a pleader, to pay the costs of the application for review filed by him. In order to determine this simple question it is necessary to set out the material facts at some length. It appears that Mt. Kanchan Kuar adopted one Ganesh Bakhsh Singh, a minor, as a son on 8th September 1929, after the death of her husband Sukh Nandan Singh. The minor obtained mutation of names in his favour on 30th June 1931, in respect of the entire property left by Sukh Nandan Singh. On 28th October 1936, the minor under the guardianship of one Sripal Singh, son of Raghunath Singh, applied under Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, for the application of the provisions of that Act to him. This application was signed by Babu Sri Ham pleader, who represented the applicant. In this application he showed the entire property left by his adoptive father Sukh Nandan Singh. Certain reversioners of Sukh Nandan Singh, who are the respondents in the case, filed objections on 15th February 1938, denying the adoption of the applicant and claiming a two-third share in the property left by the deceased Sukh Nandan Singh. On 13th April 1938, Sripal Singh acting as the guardian of Ganesh Bakhsh Singh minor, filed an application before the Special Judge in which he stated that owing to the distance of time it was very difficult to prove by oral evidence that Sukh Nandan Singh had granted permission to his widow to make the adoption. He also stated that the wajib-ul-arzes did not support the custom of adoption by the widow without the consent of her husband. Under these circumstances the guardian alleged that it was necessary to enter into a compromise with the objectors who were prepared to give a half share in the entire property otherwise two-third share in the property will go out of the possession of the minor. Permission was sought under Order 32, Rule 7, Civil P.C., to compromise the case with the objectors. The learned Civil Judge passed an order on the same day that the proposed compromise was to the benefit of the minor and allowed the guardian to enter into the compromise.

2. On 28th April 1938, Babu Sri Ram, pleader, presented an application under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., for review of the order passed by the Special Judge on the basis of the compromise. He stated therein that the minor had obtained a mutation order in his favour from the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, who had held the adoption proved, and as no appeal had been filed against it, the order had become final. It was also stated therein that the objectors had not filed any claim against the property of Sukh Nandan Singh in the civil Court within time and further that they had not got the adoption cancelled within time. He therefore urged that the guardian had acted negligently in compromising the time-barred claim and presenting a false petition against the minor depriving him of his property, and thus the compromise was not to the interest of the minor. In this application Babu Sri Ram also gave a pedigree for the purpose of showing that the minor was entitled to a considerable property of Mt. Chandra Kuar who had died, as the nearest heir of her deceased husband Amar Singh and that if the compromise was allowed to stand, the minor would be deprived of that property. This application was followed by another application on 21st May 1938, by Sripal Singh the guardian. In this application Sripal Singh stated that the compromise had been obtained from him by fraud and that he (Sripal Singh) had no knowledge that the claim of the objectors in regard to the property left by Sukh Nandan Singh was time-barred. It was also stated that the deed of adoption was genuine and must be held to prevail as the objectors had not taken any steps to get it cancelled within limitation. He also made a reference to the property left by Mt. Chandra Kuar. Paragr