In a suit instituted against the minors, the plaintiff failed to seek appointment of Guardian ad Litem of such minors and the mother of the minors, who was a co-defendant, assumed the role of a guardian and appeared and filed the written statement and later on disappeared, the learned Trial Court erred in initiating ex-parte proceedings against the minors and passing an ex-parte judgment and decree as such an order/decree is against the mandate of Order XXXII, Rule 3 read with Rule 11 of the CPC. In the instant case, the learned Trial Court rectified the said error and set aside the ex-parte proceedings as well as ex-parte judgment but the finding was reversed by the learned Revisional Court without appreciating the principles enunciated by the Superior Courts in general and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in particular in the terms that a minor should not be proceeded ex-parte and even if the Guardian ad Litem appointed by the Court fails to discharge his obligation, in defending the interest of the minors, he should not only be removed but in his place, the Court is obligated to appoint its own official as the guardian. It has been further held that the minors are vulnerable citizens and the Courts had inherent power, being parens patriae, to protect the interest of the minors, who require proper protection of the Court in terms of Principles of Policies enshrined in the Constitution, which envisage special protection to women, children as well as the marginalized citizens as per Article 35 thereof. Case reported as "Muhammad Amjad Khan Afridi and others v. Shad Muhammad and others" (PLD 2022 SC 27) is referred in this regard.
Writ Petition-Miscellaneous-Civil Suit
1222-17
ARIBA NAEEM ETC. VS A.D.J RWP ETC.
Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain
08-02-2023
2023 LHC 444
0 Comments