Judgment S. Ali Ahmad, J. 1. - The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for realization of Rs.9,210 on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 24-2-1972. They also prayed for interest both pendente lite and future. There were eight defendents out of when defendants Nos.3 to 8 were minors. Defendant nos.3 and 4 were placed under the guardianship of their father Bhim singh defendant No.1 where as defendant Nos.5 to 8 were placed under the guardianship of their father Paramanand Singh but the father, did not appear on behalf of the minors. Therefore, after discharging the fathers, from guardianship of minor defendants they were placed under the guardianship of Shri Satya Narain Singh, Advocate. Subsequently as application was filed purporting to be on behalf of the major defendants for referring the dispute between the parties to the arbitration of five persons who were named in the petition. By order dated 4.9-1979 the petition for referring the matter to the Arbitrators was allowed and the case was referred to the Arbitrators to prepare award within the time mentioned in the order. The award was given on 27-1-1980 which was filed in the Court on 30-1-1990. Thereafter an objection under Sec.30 of the Arbitration Act was filed on behalf of the defendants with a prayer to set aside the award and not confirm the same. Thereafter several objections such as fraud by the Punches, non-participation of two Punches in the proceeding etc. were raised. 2. The trial court after hearing the parties rejected the objections and passed a decree in terms of the award. Thereafter an appeal was filed on behalf of the defendants. The appeal by the minor defendants was filed by their guardian ad litem who had not filed any objection under section 30 of the Act. In the appeal the objections filed by the major defendants were raised and the court below in my opinion has rightly rejected the same. Another question that was raised on behalf of the minor defendants-appellants was that neither any application for reference to arbitration was filed on their behalf nor any leave for referring the matter to arbitration was granted by the Court as provided under Order xxxii, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Another question that was raised on behalf of the minor defendants-appellants was that neither any application for reference to arbitration was filed on their behalf nor any leave for referring the matter to arbitration was granted by the Court as provided under Order xxxii, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court below rejected this argument also on the ground that this objection was not raised within 30 days of the submission of the award in the court below. It, therefore, said that this point cannot be raised. The court below also said that the record would show that the defendants appeared for minors as well by filing vakalatnama. It therefore, rejected this argument also. Thereafter this second appeal has been filed by the defendants both major and minors. 3. Mr. Thakur Prasad appearing on behalf of the plain tiff-respondents raised an objection regarding maintainability of the appeal. He pointed out that Sec.39 (2) of the Arbitration Act provides that no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in the appeal under this section. In support of his argument learned counsel referred to the decisions in the cases of M/s Prabhat Zarda Factory V/s. State, AIR 1985 pat.241 and The Union of India V/s. The Mohindra Supply Co. , AIR 1962 sc 256 . Mr. Ghose appearing on behalf of the defendants did not very seriously dispute this position. He, however, contended that if no second appeal lies against the impuned decree then atleast a civil revision will He and said that he shall raise only point of jurisdiction. In the circumstance i am treating this appeal as a civil revision. 4. Mr. Ghose urged that Order XXXII, Rule 7 sub-rule (l) of the Code provides that no next friend or guardian shall, without the leave of the court, expressly recorded in the proceedings, enter into any agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor with reference to the suit in which he acts as next frient or guardian. He urged that in this case no agreement or application was filed on behalf of the minors or by their guardian ad litem and as such the trial court did not consider as to whether it was a proper case in which the leave of the Court should be granted permitting the next friend to enter into an agreement "to refer the dispute to the arbitration. His argument was that in absence of any agreemeut to refer the matter to arbitration on behalf of the minors and also in absence of any leave to that effect granted by the Court the entire proceeding was void and as such it was not necessary for the minors to file objection under Sec.30 of the Arbitration Act. The position that a viod decree or award can be ignored cannot be disputed. But Mr. Thakur Prasad who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents contained that in this case defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 who are fathers of defendant nos.2, 3 aod 5 to 8 respectively were present in the arbitration proceeding and they in fact represented the minors. His argument therefore was that it should be deemed that the requirements under Order XXXII, Rule 7 of the Code have been complied with and the minors were legally represented before the Arbitrators. He, therefore, contended that the decree passed on the basis of an award should not be interfered with. His alternative submission that in view of the fact that the minors were duly represented and no prejudice has been caused to them this court in exercise of power under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not interfere. 5. I have no doubt that the interest of minors was properly represented by their fathers before the Arbitrators. I have also no doubt that the defendants, in order to avoid the decree passed against them, are taking this technical plea. In fact I tried to find some way to defeat mr. Ghose but I am sorry, I could not find any way out. Order XXXII, rule 7 of the Code is quite clear. It prohibits the next friend to enter into any agreement or compromise without the leave of the Court expressly recorded in the proceeding to enter into any agreement or compromise. This provision has been made to safeguard the interest of the minors and without any exception in any case, it has been held to be mandatory. As I have indicated in this case that there was neither any application on behalf of the minors for referring the matter to Arbitrator nor there was any leave granted by the Court to that effect. The Punches did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate on the rights of the minors. As I have indicated in this case that there was neither any application on behalf of the minors for referring the matter to Arbitrator nor there was any leave granted by the Court to that effect. The Punches did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate on the rights of the minors. The award, therefore, as against the minors was void and this point could justifiably be taken before the court of appeal below. 6. I was thinking to set aside the decree against the minors and confirm the same as against the major defendants, but there is some difficulty in this also. The decree is based on the basis of an award which is not severable. If the decree was not passed by the court on the basis of an award then possibly I could have modified the decree on this line but since the award is on the basis of a decree it cannot be modified. For these reasons I allow this appeal and remit the case back to the court of appeal below for a fresh decision in accordance with law preferably within six months from today as the suit is of the year 1973. The records may be sent down immediately. Appeal allowed.