JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member. - This recommendation has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner. Agra, vide his order dated 25.5.82 for setting aside the trial court's order dated 24.4.81. 2. Briefly Stated, the facts of the case are that Hoti filed a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act I of 1951 for partition of his share in the land in suit to the extent of 1/4th. On 1.8.66 the trial court decided the shares of the parties on the basis of an agreement. Thereafter lots were prepared and the Lekhpal submitted lots on 1.9.66. On 15.11.66 the final decree was passed. On 8.1.81 Inderpal moved an application alleging that he was a minor at the time of that suit and now he had become major, that on enquiry from Lekhpal he came to know that the land in his share was lesser in degree than that in the share of Hoti, that he came to know about the proceedings of the suit on 6.1.81, and that Hari Narain was never his guardian. He prayed that the orders dated 1.9.66 and 15.11.66 may be set aside. Objection was filed by Munshi alleging that he was in possession of the land in suit over his share for thirteen to fourteen years, and that the suit was decided on the basis of agreement. The trial court allowed the application of Inderpal and set aside both the orders aforesaid. A revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner who has made a recommendation as mentioned above. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the trial court never appointed Hari Narain as guardian of Inderpal and in view of Order 32 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code the court should have passed order appointing Hari Narain as guardian of minor Inderpal, which has not been done in this case. Against this, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that an application was on the file. On the basis of that application, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that guardian of minor Inderpal was appointed by the court. 5. From the perusal of the record I find that an application (paper no. A/4) was moved by the counsel Sri Kailash Chandra Sharma for appointing Hari Narain as guardian of Inderpal, minor son of Ram Singh. On the basis of that application, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that guardian of minor Inderpal was appointed by the court. 5. From the perusal of the record I find that an application (paper no. A/4) was moved by the counsel Sri Kailash Chandra Sharma for appointing Hari Narain as guardian of Inderpal, minor son of Ram Singh. This application was not supported by an affidavit. An affidavit was filed by Hoti in support of his application but this affidavit does not verify the fact that the proposed guardian had no interest in the matter in controversy in the suit adverse to that of the minor and that he was a fit person to be so appointed. In this respect the relevant provisions of Rule (3) sub-rules(2) and (3) of the Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure read as under : "Order 32 Rule 3(2) - An order for the appointment of a guardian for the suit may be obtained upon the minor or by the plaintiff. (3) Such application shall be supported by an affidavit verifying the fact that the proposed guardian has no interest in the matters in controversy in the suit adverse to that of the minor and that he is a fit person to be so appointed." From this, it would appear that the trial court did not appoint Hari Narain as guardian of minors Tahsildar and Inderpal. Hence, the trial court committed no error in law in setting aside the orders dated 1.9.66 and 15.11.66. 6. In view of the above, I am not inclined to accept the reference and accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed.