Sarabjeet Kaur vs Iqbal Singh on 26 July, 2017

CR No.4888 of 2016 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.4888 of 2016
Date of Decision: 26.07.2017

Sarabjeet Kaur ……Petitioner
Vs
Iqbal Singh …..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Angreze Dhindsa, Advocate
for respondent.
****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)
On 18.07.2017, following order was passed:-
“Application under Section 25 of the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890 filed by the respondent was accepted
by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur vide order
dated 16.09.2015 while exercising the powers of
Guardian Judge under the Guardians and
Wards Act,
1890. Against the said order, an appeal was filed
before the Additional District Judge, Sangrur. The order
dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Sangrur was upheld by the Additional District
Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 18.03.2016. The
present revision petition has been filed by the
wife/petitioner under
Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against both the aforesaid orders.
At the time of notice of motion, following order was
passed on 02.08.2016:-

“Counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends

1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 30-07-2017 19:08:38 :::
CR No.4888 of 2016 2

that though the appeal aginst the order passed
by the guardian Judge was preferred by the
petitioner but as the District Judge is not
competent to decide the appeal against the
judgment/order passed by the guardian Judge
exercising the delegated power of the District
Judge, the judgment passed by the Additional
District Judge, Sangrur, affirming the judgment
passed by the guardian Judge being without
jurisdiction is liable to be set aside. Notice of
motion for 28.11.2016. In the meantime,
operation of the impugned order shall remain
stayed.”

In view of Section 47(c) of the Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890, the order passed under
Section 25 of the
Act whether granting or refusing the application is
appealable and the appeal lies to the High Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to
convince this Court that if the order under
Section 25 of
the Act is passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)
exercising the powers of Guardian Judge, then the
appeal lies to the Court of District Judge.
Adjourned to 26.07.2017.”

READ  Tapash Kumar Paul-vs-Soma Pal And Anr. on 5 May, 2006

The case was adjourned at the instance of the

petitioner to enable him to satisfy the Court that the order

passed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

is not appealable.

During course of arguments, learned counsel for the

2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 30-07-2017 19:08:39 :::
CR No.4888 of 2016 3

petitioner could not bring any such precedent vide which it can

be gathered that the order passed under Section 25 of the Act

is not appealable under Section 47(c) of the Guardians and

Wards Act, 1890.

In view of above, no interference in the present revision

petition is called for, however, petitioner may take recourse to

the lawful remedies available to her.

Dismissed.

July 26, 2017. (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Prince JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 30-07-2017 19:08:39 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *