JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated 9.9.74, the learned Addl. Commissioner, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the revision petition may be allowed and the order of the learned trial court dated 24.4.73 so far as it regularises the proceedings between 14.6.72 and 24.4.73 may be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record. 3. During the hearing, an application for substitution of heirs of Bhagwati deceased was filed which being in order is hereby allowed. 4. During the hearing of the case u/s 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before the trial court minor dependant nos. 7 and 8 om Prakash and Raju respectively were represented by their mother and natural guardian Smt. Ram Rati who died on 10.6.72 and an application for appointment of another guardian was filed on 13.3.73 and 24.4.73, Amar Nath real elder brother of the two minors was appointed guardian and the trial court also regularised the continuation of the proceedings after 10.6.72 in the absence of any guardian for the two minors, considering it as irregularity. This revision by Ramji Mishra who is the vendee from the defendant number 1, 2 and 3 has been filed against the aforesaid order of regularisation by the trial court. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that minors were unrepresented from 10.6.72 to 24.4 73 and the proceedings during this period were vitiated. He cited a ruling reported in 1958 R.D. 252 in support. The learned counsel further argued that on appointment of a guardian, notice to minors had necessarily to be issued. In support he cited a ruling reported in 1975 AWC 466. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the case of the minors was not prejudiced because they were un-contesting parties while in both ruling above the minors had contested the case. 6. It is seen that in the ruling 1958 RD 252, a guardian for minors was not impleaded from the very beginning and the proceedings were held void ab initio. But this ruling cannot be applicable to the present case because here Ram Rati mother and natural guardian remained up to 10.6.72 and thereafter from 24.4.1973, the brother and guardian Amar Nath was there to look after the interest of the minors. But this ruling cannot be applicable to the present case because here Ram Rati mother and natural guardian remained up to 10.6.72 and thereafter from 24.4.1973, the brother and guardian Amar Nath was there to look after the interest of the minors. It is relevant to note that the subsequent guardian did not object to the proceedings were rightly validated by the trial court. It was a matter of safeguarding the interest of the minors and any possible objection could be taken only by the guardian of the minors. Objection by a person whose interest is opposed to the interest of the minors has no significance. 7. As regards the compulsory notice to the minors, the ruling 1975 AWC 466 also will not be applicable because in this ruling, the minors defendants had contested the case while in the instant case, the minors did not contest. 8. Indeed, there are rulings and it is a settled law that the un-contesting parties are not necessary parties. Therefore, it is obvious that it was not more than an irregularity for the circumstances of the case which could be well regularised in view of section 99 of the CPC. There is no doubt that the case of minors was prejudiced. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned trial court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the reference need not be accepted and the revision petition being without force, is hereby dismissed with costs.