1979 PLP 116 (CLC)

Malik Muhammad Din for Respondent. Date of hearing : 21st January 1979. This is a petition for transfer of an application filed by the respondent. Mst. Jannat against the petitioner, Mst. Azizan, before the Judge, Family Court (Senior Civil Judge), Bahawalnagar, for appointment as guardian of the person and property of a minor, namely. Mst. Rukhsana, to the Court of Judge, Family Court (Senior Civil Judge), Sahiwal, before whom the petitioner has instituted an application for the same purpose.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the minor is admittedly residing in the district of Sahiwal. Under subsection (1) of section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 only the Courts at Sahiwal have the jurisdiction to entertain application for appointment of guardian of her person and since in the application pending at Bahawalnagar the respondent is also seeking her appointment as guardian of her person, the Court at Bahawalnagar has no jurisdiction to try that application. He, therefore, submits that the application filed at Bahawalnagar may be transferred to Sahiwal so that the two applications may be heard and decided together.

3. On the other band, learned counsel for the respondent argues that since the property of the minor is located in the district of Bahwalnagar, the Court at Bahawalnagar will be in a better position to ensure proper Management of that property by the guardian of the minor whosoever is appointed as such and, therefore, it will not be appropriate to transfer the application from Bahawalnagar to Sahiwal. Instead, according to him, the application being pursued at Sahiwal should be heard along with the one pending at Bahawalnagar.

4. Admittedly, the minor is residing in the District of Sahiwal. In both the applications there is prayer for appointment as guardian of her persona and property. According to subsection (1) of section 9 of the said Act. the only Court which can try an application for appointment of guardian of the person of a minor is the Court of the District in which the minor ordinarily resides. To that extent, therefore, the Courts of Sahiwal only are competent to hear the applications in question. The case of Mst. Maqsoodan Bibi v. Mst. Bhano (P L D 1965 Lah. 183) is an authority in point.

5. As for the appointment of the guardian of the property of a minor, the application can be made, under subsection (2) of section 9'ofi the said Act both at the place where the minor resides as well as at the place where the property is situated. Even in that case, subsection (3) of section 9 of the said Act provides that "If an application with respect to the guardianship of the property of minor is made to a District Court other than that having jurisdiction on in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, the Court may return the application if in its opinion the application would be disposed of more justly or conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction".

6. In view of the said provisions of law, I feel that since the Court at BahawaInagar have no jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the person of the minor and the Courts at Sahiwal are competent to appoint a guardians of her person as well as property and in either of the two cases the' applicant is seeking her appointment as guardian of the person as well as C the property of the minor, it will not only be inconsonance with the provisions of law but also in conformity with the rules of propriety if the application at Bahawalnagar is transferred to Sahiwal so that the two applications are heard and decided together.

7. I, therefore, transfer the application filed by the respondent before the Judge, Family Court (Senior Civil Judge), Bahawalnagar, to the Judge, Family Court (Senior Civil Judge), Sahiwal.

8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Case transferred.