JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. - The revision, under Section 115 CPC, is directed against the order, dated 19.3.1988, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Bahraich, has rejected an application, C45, of the applicants for permission to retire from guardianship in the proceedings. 2. It appears that applicant nos. 1 and 2 were minors and their father, Pyare Lal, was appointed guardianadlitem in the case of Execution Case No. 14 of 1985. After some time, Pyare Lal applied to the lower court for permission to withdraw from guardianship. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application on the ground that the guardian perhaps wanted to prolong the proceedings, and had not assigned reasons for revoking his appointment as guardian. 3. There is force in the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that the order is illegal, in as much as, Order 32 rule 11 CPC, entitles a guardian to retire from the suit with the only qualification, according to an amendment by the Allahabad High Court, that if he does not furnish reasonable cause, he may be required to pay costs to be incurred in the appointment of a fresh guardian. 4. The appointment of the guardian is a matter of proceedings between the minor and the court, and, therefore, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the other parties of the case. The order, under revision is patently erroneous. 5. The revision is allowed, and the order, dated 19.3.1988, is set aside. The learned Civil Judge will now proceed to appoint another guardian for applicants, Putti Lal and Maharaj Din, in accordance with law, but the present guardian, Pyare Lal, shall pay costs which may have to be incurred for the appointment of a fresh guardian. 6. Copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the revisionists within 48 hours, if possible, on payment of usual charges. [Revision allowed]