MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision petition arises out of order dated 30. 9. 99 of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 1/56, whereby the respondent No. 3's application under Order 32 Rule 7 CPC was allowed.
(2.) A suit for specific performance of a contract dated 23. 12. 82 was instituted by the petitioner (plaintiff) against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 out of whom respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were minors. However on 24. 7. 1992 a compromise was entered into between the parties. This compromise was accepted by the trial court on 24. 8. 92. On 25. 5. 96 when the respondent No. 3 (Ajai Singh) moved an application under Order 32 Rule 7 and Section 151 CPC for setting aside compromise referred to above, on the ground that at the time of compromise, he (respondent No. 3) was minor and the compromise made on behalf of the minor by his guardian Babulal (defendant) was illegal because no permission was sought of the trial Court prior to the compromise on his behalf nor the trial court which accepted the compromise, recorded its satisfaction as to whether the compromise entered into on behalf of the minor was beneficial to the minor. After hearing the parties, the trial court allowed the application under Order 32 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC and set aside the compromise as against respondent No. 3. Hence this revision petition. Shri Rajesh Kapoor learned counsel for the petitioner contended that application under Order 32 Rule 7 CPC was not maintainable as only remedy available was to file either a review petition within 30 days or the revision petition against the order accepting the compromise in question inasmuch as the application having been filed on 25. 5. 96 was time barred, Shri Kapoor further contended that the trial court failed to consider affidavit dated 24. 11. 94 wherein respondent No. 3 described his age as 20 years and also admitted to the compromise as well as the order dated 24. 8. 1992 accepting the compromise. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. As regards maintainability of the application, it may be pointed out that before the trial court where applications under Rules 12 and 7 of Order 32 CPC were being heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not raise any such objection as to the maintainability. Rather from the impugned order, it appears that no such objection to the effect that application being time barred was not maintainable was not taken nor the remedy available against order accepting compromise on behalf of a minor to file review or revision, was raised before the trial court. The trial court in its order at page 3 specifically observed that the learned counsel for Ajay Singh contended that Ajai Singh attained majority on 11. 12. 94 and after one and half years thereto, leave to proceed in the suit had been sought within limitation and trial court has observed that learned counsel for the plaintiff did not object to the contention raised on behalf of Ajay Singh. Thus accordingly the trial court, granted leave under Rule 12 of Order 32 CPC to the defendant Ajay Singh on attaining his majority. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance and merit to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the maintainability of the application and the remedy as suggested by him. Moreover, application in the instant case has been moved not only under Order 32 Rule 7 but also under Section 151 CPC. Section 151 CPC empowers the Court to exercise the inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Sub rule (1) to Rule 7 of Order 32 CPC provides that no next friend or guardian for the suit shall without 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 such. Sub rule (1a) of Rule 7 of Order 32 CPC provides that an 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. Sub rule (2) of Rule 7 of Order 32 CPC provides that 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. Thus, keeping in view aforesaid provisions, it cannot be denied that under Rule 7 (1) of Order 32 CPC it is necessary for the next friend or guardian of a minor in the suit to take leave of the Court being expressly recorded in the proceedings before entering into any agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor with reference to the suit and for which, the next friend or guardian is required to satisfy the Court by an affidavit to the effect that such agreement or compromise is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor, otherwise under Rule 7 (2) of Order 32 CPC in the absence of such leave under Rule 7 (1) so recorded by the Court in the proceeding, such compromise entered into on behalf of a minor by his guardian or next friend is void against all parties other than the minor.
(3.) IN the instant case, on an application moved by the minor on attaining his majority under Order 32 Rule 7 and 12 read with Section 151 CPC, the trial court, after examining the proceedings arrived at the conclusion that Babulal (defendant) who was guardian for the minor Ajai Singh (defendant) (respondent No. 3) for the suit failed to establish that he obtained leave of the Court so as to enter into compromise dated 24. 7. 92 on behalf of Ajai Singh (who was minor at that time) with reference to the Suit inasmuch as the trial court merely attested and verified the record either leave or satisfaction as to whether the compromise in question was for the benefit of Ajai Singh (minor ). Thus, in the opinion of the trial court, the decree on the basis of such a compromise dated 24. 7. 92 entered into on behalf of Ajai Singh (minor) by Babulal without leave of the Court so recorded in the suit proceedings was void ab-initio under Rule 7 (2) of Order 32 CPC. IN my considered opinion, the trial court has rightly exercised its discretion and inherent powers under Section 151 CPC for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. There is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impuged order of the trial court so as to warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The conclusions drawn by the trial Court are based on canons of law enunciated by the Apex Court in Dhirendra Garg vs. Sugandhi (1) and by this Court in Akke Singh vs. Durjan Singh I have also carefully examined ratio of decision in aforesaid cases, which are attracted to the facts of the present case. As a result of the above discussion, this civil revision petition is dismissed in limine. .;