PARMANAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petn. for revision is directed against the order of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Barnala, dated 25-10-1950 forfeiting the surety bonds presented by the petnrs. for the appearance of one Wali Mohd in the course of the guardianship proceedings pending before the Sub-Judge. By an order of the Dist. J. Malerkotla, dated 14-12-47 Shahzada was appointed guardian of the property of Ham Din & Abdul Ghafoor minors, On 25-2-49 one Barket presented an appln. to the Sub-Judge 1st Glass, Barnala, who was then seized of the guardianship proceedings for discharge of the guardian & for taking over possession of the property of the minors on the ground of mismanagement of the de jure guardian. On summons being issued to the. guardian, his son Wali Mohd who is also said to have acted as his Mukhtiar-i-am appeared in the Ct. on 29-4-50. The Ct. that day ordered him to show cause why proceedings under Section 45(1)(b) of the Guardians & Wards Act be not taken against him & to furnish a personal bond for Rs. 5, 000 & two sureties for Rs. 6000 each for his appearance during the proceedings. The present petnrs. stood sureties for Wali Mohd. On 18-8-50 Wali Mohd. did not appear when the case was called & the sureties were required to produce him on 6-9-50. On that day the sureties produced Shahzada, the guardian of the minors, & undertook to get the amount that may be found due from him paid in Ct. The case was then adjourned to 13-9-50 for hearing arguments. The Ct. on the next three hearings did not get time to advert to the case & finally on 25-10-50 the bonds were ordered to be forfeited because the sureties had failed to produce Wali Mohd as directed.

(2.) Sri Jagan Nath, the learned Counsel for the petnrs. contends that since it was not Wali Mohd. who was appointed to Act as the guardian of the minors he could not be proceeded against by the Guardianship Ct. under Section 45, Guardians & Wards Act. The Ct. was not empowered under any law to bind down Wali Mohd for appearance & the order being without jurisdiction its breach did not entail any penalty. There appears to be much force in the argument & it is frankly conceded by the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that the Guardianship Ct. had no power to proceed against third parties. The Sub-Judge was not a civil Ct. under the Guardians & Wards Act & as such had no power over third parties. His powers were strictly confined to those conferred upon him by the Act. He had control over the ward & over the guardian & also over other persona who had custody of the person of the ward but he had no power over third person who might have entered into possession of the property of the ward whether rightly or wrongly. Even if it be conceded that Wali Mohd was intermeddling with the estate of the minors or was managing the property as a de facto guardian acting on behalf of his father or as his Mukhtiar-i-am the Court could not legally proceed against him under Section 45, Guardians & Wards Act. He could not be ordered to deliver to the Ct. any statement pf accounts or pay into the Ct. the balance that might be due from the guardian appointed by it. The order for furnishing sureties being without jurisdiction non-compliance of the bonds did not empower the Ct. to order their forfeiture. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order was illegal & not enjoined by any law. The petn. is consequently accepted & the order of Sub-Judge, 1st Class Barnala dated 25-10-50 set aside. No order as to costs.