Short Note : 1. The learned counsel contended that since no consent was obtained from the guardian of the applicant while appointing Gopaldas as commissioner, the aforesaid appointment should be held to be illegal and a new commissioner be appointed. Held: In my opinion, this contention is without any basis. It is true that the application proposing the name of Gopaldas was not signed by the applicant's father Shrinath who was functioning as the guardian of the applicant also, but the fact remains that even after 1966 Shrinath had been participating before the commissioner continuously in the proceedings for effecting the partition and has never raised any objection. Under these circumstances, in the year 1974 the objection raised by the petitioner is absolutely meaningless. It would be relevant to mention that the petitioner attained majority in July 1972. He did not raise any objection even then. No cogent material could be shown to infer that any material prejudice has been caused to the interests of the applicant. The report of the commissioner is yet before the trial Court. When he was under cross-examination by various parties, the applicant, instead of cross-examining him, moved an application seeking quashing of the entire proceedings including the preliminary decree. The said application was heard and rejected and, after rejecting the same the trial Court asked the applicant to cross-examine the commissioner. He did not avail of this opportunity. No objection was filed specifically on behalf of the applicant to the report of the commissioner. 2. The order impugned, has been made by the: trial Court by giving sufficient reasons to hold that the objection raised by the applicant for setting aside the appointment of the commissioner is frivolous and without any basis. The order does not suffer with any error of jurisdiction nor it could be pointed out that the trial Court acted with material irregularity while rejecting such an objection. Revision dismissed.