1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for rent. These defendants had originally held the land on condition of paying half the crop as rent. The rent in kind was commuted as a result of proceedings under Section 40 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs who are the landlords, sued for arrears of rent in kind. The defendants pleaded commutation and offered to pay rent according to the order of the revenue officer. The plaintiffs took three objections to the order of the revenue officer to the commutation. All the three objections were overruled by the first Court which gave a decree for rent in accordance with the revenue officer's order. In appeal two of the objections taken before the lower Court were given up and the only objection that was pressed was that one of the plaintiffs was a minor whose natural guardian had been served with notice in the proceedings for commutation, and that that natural guardian had not appeared and contested the proceedings before the revenue officer. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal gave effect to this objection and held that the minor plaintiff had not been legally represented in the proceedings and the proceedings were, therefore, void. He accordingly gave a decree for rent in kind as prayed by the plaintiffs. This finding of law is clearly erroneous. Proceedings under Section 40 of the Bengal Tenancy Act are miscellaneous proceedings by a revenue officer in regard to which there are no provisions as to procedure either in the Act itself or in the rules framed under the Act. The provisions of Rule 3, Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure have no application. The only matter for a Court to consider in regard to the legality or otherwise of proceedings such as the present where a minor has. been represented by a guardian who had not appeared is whether the minor was prejudiced by the non-appearance of his guardian. It is not alleged or suggested that the adult landlords' interests in any way conflicted with those of the minor, and there is no allegation that if the minor had been represented by a guardian, who had appeared on his behalf such appearance would have produced a different result in the proceedings. That being so, failure of the guardian to appear is no ground for interference by a civil Court with the orders passed by the revenue officer. There has been no illegality; and, except on the ground of illegality, there can be no interference by a civil Court.
2. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside and that of the Munsif restored with costs in all Courts.