JUDGMENT Ismail and Malik, JJ. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought for a declaration that decree No. 10 of 1937 of the Civil Judge's Court, Jhansi, was null and void and was not binding on the Plaintiff. The facts that have given rise to this appeal are perfectly simple. It appears that Defendant No. 1 had filed suit No. 10 of 1937, in the Civil Judge's Court at Jhansi for possession of certain property. The Plaintiff was a minor at the time. A guardian ad litem was appointed by the Court to represent her. The matter was referred to arbitration with the consent of the parties, by the learned Civil Judge. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings a notice was sent to the arbitrators by the Plaintiff not to proceed with the arbitration. An application was made by her to the Court to supersede the reference as she no longer wanted the case to be decided by the arbitrators. It may be mentioned that the application was incompetent because the Plaintiff should have been represented by her guardian and the application should have been made by the guardian and not by the minor. Mr. Kaul, the Civil Judge, died and no officer was appointed in his place till then The application was, therefore, put up before the learned District Judge along with the report of the arbitrators. The learned District Judge disposed of the matter in the absence of the Defendant or her representative and recalled the reference. The next day, that is, on the 6th May an application was made on behalf of the Defendant pointing out to the learned Judge that his order was erroneous and was passed under some misapprehension. The learned District Judge immediately recalled his order and allowed the arbitration to proceed. Eventually an award was made and on the basis of the award a decree was passed. 2. The contention on behalf of the Plaintiff is that the order of the 5th of May passed by the District Judge terminated the previous proceedings and the next order passed on the 6th of May should be regarded as a fresh reference. It is also contended that no fresh reference could be made without the consent of the parties and that the Plaintiff was not a consenting party. It is also contended that no fresh reference could be made without the consent of the parties and that the Plaintiff was not a consenting party. Another objection was taken that no certificate was issued under Order 32 Rule 7 which vitiates the roceeding. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of the appeal. We are not prepared to accept the contention of the Appellant that the order of the 6th May was a fresh reference. The order of the 5th May was passed behind the back of the Defendant-Respondent and apparently under a misapprehension of facts. There was no occasion for the District Judge to act under Rule 8 of Schedule 2, It appears that the learned District Judge thought that the arbitrators were not prepared to go on with the case and also that one of the parties was opposed to arbitration. He, therefore, recalled the reference without giving an opportunity to the Defendant to show cause against the order. As soon as the full facts were brought to the notice of the District Judge the order of the 5th May was vacated and the arbitrators were directed to proceed with the case under the original reference. That being so, there was no occasion to give a fresh certificate under Rule 1 Order 32. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.