C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) REVISION petitioner is the 2nd defendant in a suit for partition filed by the 1st respondent for herself and on behalf of her minor daughters. ( 2 ) THE trial Court, while dismissing the claim of plaintiffs 2 and 3 i. e. respondents 2 and 3, on the ground that they even after becoming majors, did not file a petition opting to proceed with the suit, observing that inasmuch as they are females under the care and custody of 1st respondent even after attaining majority, passed a preliminary decree allotting 1/6th share in item Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 and 1/3rd share in item No. 6 of the plaint schedule to 1st plaintiff. Thereafter, revision petitioner filed I. A. No. 117 of 2004 seeking review of the said Judgment and Decree on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record because the Court erroneously allotted a share to the quandam minor plaintiffs also while dismissing their suit in the decree passed in favour of 1st plaintiff, which was dismissed by the order under revision. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the trial Court passed a decree for the entire share claimed by all the three plaintiffs in favour of the 1st plaintiff, though it dismissed the claim of plaintiffs 2 and 3, and should have passed a decree only to the extent of the share to which the 1st plaintiff is entitled to but not for the share of plaintiffs 2 and 3 also there is an error apparent on the face of the record and so the trial Court should have reviewed its Judgment and decree. ( 4 ) A reading of the Judgment in the suit shows that the Court keeping in view the fact that it dismissed the suit of plaintiffs 2 and 3, passed a decree in favour of 1st plaintiff in respect of their shares also observing that in as much as plaintiffs 2 and 3 are females and are in the custody of 1st plaintiff even after they became majors decree as Prayed for can be passed in favour of the P. W. 9 plaintiff, So the question is if that finding of the Court amounts to an erroneous Judgment or an error apparent on the face of record. ( 5 ) WHAT is an error on the face of the record has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. From the Judgment in the suit it is seen that during the course of arguments the counsel for defendants took a plea that inasmuch as plaintiffs 2 and 3, after they became majors did not opt to continue the suit their claim for partition has to be dismissed. Thereafter, a memo seems to have been filed informing the Court that plaintiffs 2 and 3, who became majors are adopting the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. The Court obsouring that it cannot take action on a mere memo in the absence of a petition dismissed the suit of plaintiffs 2 and 3, but ultimately granted the relief sought in the suit while passing a decree in favour of the 1st plaintiff only. ( 6 ) THE observation of the Court in the Judgment that if a minor on attaining majority does not file a petition opting to continue the suit, the suit is liable to be dismissed is not a correct view. After attaining majority, a minor plaintiff has two options (i) to proceed with the suit or (ii) to abandon the suit. The procedure to be followed by the quandam minor while exercising any of the options available to him is laid down in Order 32 CPC, but that order is silent as to what should happen if the quandam minor does not choose the options available and continues to allow the guardian that filed the suit on his (her) behalf to proceed with the suit In such case, it is held in Dharnamshi Polabhai Vs. Champaklal Vashram, air 1983 GUJARAT 217 that the decision rendered Would bind the minor, unless his next friend acted negligently and did not defraud him. ( 7 ) THE fact that plaintiffs 2 and 3 filed a memo that they are adopting the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 clearly shows that they elected to proceed with the suit, but they did not follow the procedure to be followed i. e. , they who ought to have applied for discharge of the guardian and sought leave to proceed with the suit in their own names, which is but a procedural irregularity. 1 and 2 clearly shows that they elected to proceed with the suit, but they did not follow the procedure to be followed i. e. , they who ought to have applied for discharge of the guardian and sought leave to proceed with the suit in their own names, which is but a procedural irregularity. It is well known that rules of procedure are but handmaids of justice failure to follow which may or can me result in some penalty but not can result in a negation of a right granted by the substantive law. The trial Court should have borne in mind that plaintiffs did not seek partition of their individual shares in the total share to be allotted to them. They sought partition of the total share belonging to them in the plaint schedule prpperty. In the above circumstances, it cannot positively be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record because of the Court passing a decree for the shares of all the plaintiffs in favour of the 1st plaintiff. ( 8 ) THE above apart, since the Court passed a decree for the shares of plaintiffs 2 and 3 also in favour of 1st plaintiff knowing fully well that it dismissed the suit of plaintiffs 2 and 3 giving reasons for its so doing, it would not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record, because the Court knew what it is doing and so it may amount to an erroneous decision. In such a case the remedy available to the person aggrieved is to file an appeal but not a petition for a review and so I see no merits in this revision petition. in the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.