NAJMA NAQUISHBAND Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Srinagar, dt.16-11-1974. An application for setting aside ex parte decree was dismissed by the trial Judge and this appeal is against the said order. It appears that one Dinaara Naquishband was deputed by the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir to study in the Women's Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, in the year 1941. She had to study the course of Sub-Assistant Surgeon, and for this purpose she had executed a contract agreement with the State Government. She was paid some money by way of stipend, hostel fee, dearness allowance etc. etc. The total fee paid to her was Rs.7,407-7-00. Since she has not complied with the terms of the agreement, therefore the suit was brought against her for the recover of the said amount. She had migrated to Pakistan after partition and she was set ex parte. One Ghulam Nabi Naquishbandi was her surety who had bound himself to refund the amount. Dinuara Naquishband was proceeded ex parte but Ghulam Nabi Naquisband had died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representative were brought on record. Among the legal representatives three daughters and one son were minors' who were shown under the guardianship of their mother Rafiqa Begum. She refused to act as their guardian. Therafter one Gias-ud-Din was appointed as their guardian. Mr. Gias-ud-Din during the pendency of the suit had joined State Service and had appointed Mr. Mohd. Shari as his counsel and he acted as such till the final disposal of the case. The trial Court decree was passed on 22-7-1955. Thereafter application for setting aside ex parte decree was filed.

(2.) At one stage application for setting aside ex parte decree was dismissed and against that appeal had been taken to the High Court. The High Court had remitted the case back with the direction that the trial Court should consider as to whether minors were effectively represented in the suit or not. In case they were effectively represented then there was nothing wrong with the order of the trial Court. But in case they were not effectively represented the decree against them was to be set aside.

(3.) The learned trial Court has discussed the entire evidence in the case and come to the conclusion that minors were effectively represented in the Court till disposal of the list Therefore, there was no ground for setting aside the decree.