P (PLP)

(a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)

S. 11 Procedure not followed‑Proceedings may be vitiated. An application ought not to be registered as a matter of course and without examination before the judge is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding on the basis thereof. The section prescribes a procedure for the disposal of application for the appointment of guardians, and this procedure is to be strictly followed. Its non‑observance would vitiate the whole proceedings, 20 I C 571 relied on. ORDER.‑

Subhan respondent male an application ;ruder section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act for appointment as guardian of her minor daughter, Mst. Maryam against Allah Bakhsh, her maternal uncle. The mother of Mst. Maryam was shown among the relatives of the minor. The application was made on 14th of March 1948 and was decided on 26th of April 1950, by the Senior Sub‑Judge Bahawalpur, appointing Subhan 1 guardian of Mst. Maryam, his daughter. Mst. Jiwai, the mother of the minor with whom the minor lives but who is divorced by Subhan has appealed against the order of the learned Senior Sub‑Judge appointing the father as the guardian of his minor daughter. An important preliminary question arises whether the proceedings in the Court below were in accordance with law. Section 11 of the Act reads If the Court is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding on the application, it shall fix a day for the hearing thereof, and cause notice of the application, and of the date fixed for the hearing ". The context of this section would show that it tenders it obligatory upon the Court to be satisfied that there is ground for proceeding on the application before a date is fixed for .hearing thereof, and notice is served as contemplated by the Act. In other words. an application ought not to be registered as a matter of course and without examination before the Judge is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding on the basis thereof. The section prescribes a procedure for the disposal of application for the appointment of guardians, and this procedure is to be strictly followed. Its non‑observance would vitiate the Whole proceedings. See in this connection 201 I.C.

578. It would appear from the record, of this case that the learned Senior Sub‑Judge to whom the petition was presented never cared to look at it. The first order thereon by which the petition was admitted is in the hand of an Ahlkar of that Court and it only bears the initials of the presiding officer: That order clearly indicates that the Judge did not satisfy himself before he admitted the petition. This 'imperative duty was entursted by him to his Reader or Ahmad whoever is the writer of that order. The. presiding officer therefore, was evidently guilty of non observance of the imperative provisions of section 11 of Guardian and Wards Act. This fact alone compels me to interfere with the order under .appeal. Indeed this will word an opportunity to the mother to contest this petition. I would therefore accept this appeal, set aside the order appointing Subhan as the guardian of his minor daughter, Mst. Maryam and direct the Court to proceed afresh in this case and to give a fresh decision thereon. I pass no order, as to costs. The parties shall appear before the Court on 1st o August

150. The nefarious practice of following the Readers or, Ahlmad by the presiding officers to record important orders in this State invariably results in non‑compliance of prescribed law ands injustice to the litigant public, Besides inconvenience and monetary loss to them. It is to say the least, a slur on the subordinate judiciary. I have frequently expressed my disapproval of this practice arid I cannot hesitate to observe that if the subordinate Judiciary does not become alive to its responsibility and dues not give up the practice of entrusting its important duty to the subordinate establishment, the High Court ‑would not hesitate, to take serious action‑against the delinquent officers. K. M. A. Appeal accepted