ORDER : T.R. Ravi, J. This review petition has been filed by a third party seeking review of the order dated 24.07.2024 in AR No.26 of 2024, which related to the dissolution and settlement of accounts of a partnership firm by name M/s. Yespeesons Enterprises. The review petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner who is now aged 28 years had been admitted to the partnership as a minor and was illegally excluded by the respondents in the review petition without determination or disbursement of their shares in the firm, and that, any decision on the claims of the respondents alone, excluding the claim of partners like the review petitioner, will lead to serious prejudice to the rightful sharers and also result in multiplicity of proceedings. It is alleged that there is suppression and fraud, tantamounting to error apparent on the face of the record, warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction. 2. AR No.26 of 2024 was disposed of along with AR Nos.25, 27, 28, 45 and 46 of 2024. The arbitration requests related to five different partnership firms, in which the respondents herein were partners. The review petitioner is the son of the 2 nd respondent, who was the 1 st respondent in AR No.26 of 2024. It can be seen from the common order in AR No. 26 of 2024 and other cases that the counsel for the 2 nd respondent had objected to the reference to arbitration in AR No.26 of 2024 stating that there was already a mediated settlement between the parties with regard to the rights of the partners and the obligations of the 2 nd respondent had already been met by him under the settlement arrived at. This Court had found that the said aspect has also to be gone into by the Arbitrator and it was open to both sides to put forward all their contentions including the contention regarding the settlement arrived at between the parties. 3. The review petitioner contends that as per Annexure R3(a) partnership deed, the review petitioner was admitted into the partnership as a minor along with other minors who were children of the three original partners with an option to the minors to become full-fledged partner on their attaining majority. The review petitioner was a 5 year old at that point of time. The review petitioner was a 5 year old at that point of time. The counsel for the review petitioner submits that from 12.02.2007, the minors were illegally excluded from the benefit of the partnership contrary to the provisions of the Partnership Act. This happened in 2007 and such a challenge has been raised in 2025, more than 10 years after the petitioner attained majority. It is apparent that this claim has been raised only in aid of the contention which had been taken by the 2 nd respondent during the disposal of the arbitration request by the common order that the dispute involved in AR No.26 of 2024 was no longer arbitrable. 4. The 3 rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the claim of the review petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation and is unsustainable. It is contended that the motive is to protract the arbitration proceedings which had already commenced. It is submitted that the withdrawal of the children from the benefits of the partnership was very much in accordance with Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 . It is further submitted that the accumulated share of profits had been credited to a separate account and upon attaining majority interest on the credit balance of their personal income had been declared in the personal income tax returns. Documents are also produced in support of the above said contentions. I do not think it is necessary to go into those factual aspects in this review petition. 5. Section 30 of the Partnership Act reads thus; “ 30. Minors admitted to the benefits of partnership .— (1) A person who is a minor according to the law to which he is subject may not be a partner in a firm, but, with the consent of all the partners for the time being, he may be admitted to the benefits of partnership. (2) Such minor has a right to such share of the property and of the profits of the firm as may be agreed upon, and he may have access to and inspect and copy any of the accounts of the firm. (3) Such minor’s share is liable for the acts of the firm, but the minor is not personally liable for any such act. (3) Such minor’s share is liable for the acts of the firm, but the minor is not personally liable for any such act. (4) Such minor may not sue the partners for an account or payment of his share of the property or profits of the firm, save when severing his connection with the firm, and in such case the amount of his share shall be determined by a valuation made as far as possible in accordance with the rules contained in section 48: Provided that all the partners acting together or any partner entitled to dissolve the firm upon notice to other partners may elect in such suit to dissolve the firm, and thereupon the Court shall proceed with the suit as one for dissolution and for settling accounts between the partners, and the amount of the share of the minor shall be determined along with the shares of the partners. (5) At any time within six months of his attaining majority, or of his obtaining knowledge that he had been admitted to the benefits of partnership, whichever date is later, such person may give public notice that he has elected to become or that he has elected not to become a partner in the firm, and such notice shall determine his position as regards the firm: Provided that, if he fails to give such notice, he shall become a partner in the firm on the expiry of the said six months. (6) Where any person has been admitted as a minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm, the burden of proving the fact that such person had no knowledge of such admission until a particular date after the expiry of six months of his attaining majority shall lie on the persons asserting that fact. (7) Where such person becomes a partner,— (a) his rights and liabilities as a minor continue up to the date on which he becomes a partner, but he also becomes personally liable to third parties for all acts of the firm done since he was admitted to the benefits of partnership, and (b) his share in the property and profits of the firm shall be the share to which he was entitled as a minor. (8)Where such person elects not to become a partner,— (a) his rights and liabilities shall continue to be those of a minor under this section up to the date on which he gives public notice, (b) his share shall not be liable for any acts of the firm done after the date of the notice, and (c) he shall be entitled to sue the partners for his share of the property and profits in accordance with sub-section (4). (9)Nothing in sub-sections (7) and (8) shall affect the provisions of section 28.” 6. In State of Kerala v. Laxmi Vasanth & Ors. [2021 (2) KLT OnLine 1048] , a contention had been raised before this Court that minor partners were obliged to issue notice in terms of Section 30 (5) within 6 months from the date of attaining majority and if they failed to do so, the consequence is that the minors admitted to the benefit of the firm continue to be partners and will be liable to the debts of the partnership. This Court found that the minors who had been included had been removed from the firm during their minority itself and did not continue to be partners till they attained majority. It was held that the minors cannot be proceeded against. The said judgment had been challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the judgment in State of Kerala & Ors. v. Laxmi Vasanth & Ors. [2022 (2) ICC 737, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and held that (5) shall be applicable only in a case where a minor was inducted as a partner and thereafter at the time of attaining the majority, he continued as a partner. 7. The counsel for the respondent submitted that in the case on hand the petitioner and other minors had been excluded from the partnership during their minority itself and as a matter of fact all the benefits that accrued to them had also been received by them and it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the removal from the partnership in 2007, in a review petition filed against the order passed in the arbitration request made by the continuing partners of the firm. It is further submitted that the disputes between the partners arose only in the year 2019 and at that point of time there were only 3 partners and by then 5 years had gone by after the petitioner had attained majority. The petitioner had sought to put forward a claim that he became aware of these facts only on 31.02.2025 when the 1 st respondent in the review petition was admitted in a hospital. Such a contention cannot be countenanced in view of the facts revealed in this review petition. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. [ 2006 KHC 810 ] to submit that a petition for review of an order passed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable. The said judgment will not help the petitioner in any manner since according to me, a review petition at his instance on the grounds mentioned cannot be entertained. This Court is not going into the maintainability or otherwise of such a petition. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. v. Pratibha Industries Ltd. & Ors. [2018 KHC 6977] was relied on by the counsel for the petitioner to submit that the constitutional courts being courts of record have jurisdiction to recall their own orders. The said judgment would also not help the petitioner in view of the conclusions stated above. Reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S. Patel [2024 KHC 6512] to submit that non-signatories can also be parties in an arbitration. The said judgment does not apply to the facts of this case. According to me, the petitioner who had been removed from partnership in the year 2007 and had become a major in 2014 cannot challenge the exclusion from the partnership at this distance of time collaterally in a review petition filed against an order passed in an arbitration request. The application for leave to file the review petition is dismissed. Consequently, the application to condone the delay in filing the review petition and the unnumbered review petition are also dismissed.