BHURIYABAI Vs. MADANLAL SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection was raised with unholy endeavour to throw out the petition at the threshold, which must he resisted.

(2.) AN application in guardianship matter was filed, which was disposed of ex parte. The father was appointed the guardian of the child without hearing the mother, who had opposed the application. The mother is before me in this revision and she challenges the impugned order passed on 11-10-1984, by which, her prayer to re-hear the matter was refused. The Court held that the prayer could not be entertained. Shri K. S. Agrawal's objection is that rejection of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being appealable, an appeal should have been preferred and the revision is not maintainable. This is begging the question. The question to be decided is whether order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code applies, which, the Court said 'does not'. It was not therefore, an order passed under Order 9 Rule 13, C. P. C. so that it could be appealed.

(3.) ON merits of the case, I have no manner of doubt that this petition must succeed. The application was filed under the Guardians and Wards Act, which enactment is silent on the question. But, the answer is provided by Section 141, civil Procedure Code. Because, it cannot be denied in view of section 4 (4) of the act that the Guardianship Court was a Court of civil jurisdiction. It is explicitly provided in Section 141, C. P. C, that the procedure prescribed in the Code shall be applied mutatis mutandis to all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. The proposition is unexceptionable and the law is beyond dispute. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable in any view of the matter.