SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kamaldeep Singh vs Jeet Kaur And Anr on 26 February, 2018

FAO-1212 of 2018 (OM) -1-


106 FAO-1212 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision:- 26.2.2018

Kamaldeep Singh … Appellant
Jeet Kaur and another … Respondents


Present:- Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.



Respondent No.1, maternal grand-mother of minor children

Gurshanveer Singh and Damanpreet Kaur, son and daughter of appellant

had filed a petition under Section 8 of the Hindu Minorities and

Guardianship Act, 1956, read with Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards

Act, 1890 for appointing her as legal guardian for the person and property

of the minors by impleading General Public. The General Public was

proceeded against ex parte.

The appellant claims that being father and natural guardian, he

had intentionally not been made a party in the Court at Mukerian. As such,

a serious prejudice has been caused to his legal rights. It has also been

submitted that the appellant himself has filed a petition under Section 7 of

the Guardian and Wards Act. It is also submitted that appellant has also

filed a petition under Section 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act

before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur,

which petition was required to be taken up by one Court.

1 of 2
04-03-2018 04:53:30 :::
FAO-1212 of 2018 (OM) -2-

We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the

appellant and find that the Court of competent jurisdiction should have been

apprised of the pendency of the similar proceedings in two different Courts

as per Section 14(1) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.

Since the appellant claims that he was ex parte in the Court at

Mukerian, he was not able to apprise the Court at Mukerian regarding the

fact that he was pursuing his remedy in appropriate proceeding before the

Court at Dasuya. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant has

got a right to seek the setting aside of ex parte order dated 2.11.2016 passed

by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Mukerian, taking all the pleas

raised in the present appeal. Besides this, he can also approach the Court at

Mukerian and Dasuya to inform pendency of the proceedings in different

Courts. The judicial propriety demands that before entering into the

controversies of law, the appellant should avail the above said remedies.

Since there is a delay of 376 days in filing of the present

appeal, it is observed that the plea of condonation of delay can be raised

before the Court below by informing the date of knowledge of the pre-

judicial orders passed against the appellant.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal as well as the

miscellaneous applications are disposed of relegating the appellant to avail

the alternate remedies.

( M.M.S. BEDI )

February 26, 2018 JUDGE

Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable Yes / No

2 of 2
04-03-2018 04:53:32 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation