FAO-1212 of 2018 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
106 FAO-1212 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision:- 26.2.2018
Kamaldeep Singh … Appellant
Jeet Kaur and another … Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
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 )
( GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
February 26, 2018 JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
2 of 2
04-03-2018 04:53:32 :::