Law:

Section:

This revision petition is directed against an order dated 29-5-1979 passed by the learned trial Court under Order XXXII, rule 11, C. P. C. dismissing the application of the petitioner. The facts of the case are that respondents Nos. I to 9 filed a suit for the possession of land measuring 51 kanals 10 marlas situate in Chak Jagna; Tehsil and District Gujranwala by way of the exercise of the right of pre-emption. Respondents Nos. 10 to - 17 and the present petitioner were the defendants before the learned trial Court. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were minors (now respondents Nos, 10. 11 and 12). As the plaint showed respondents Nos. 10 and 11 as minors, therefore, there was an application under Order XXXII, rule 3, C. P. C. for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The petitioner being the father of the minors as well as one of the defendants, was appointed as guardian ad litem vide order of the learned trial Court dated 6-31974. The petitioner on 29-5-1979 moved an application to the trial Court and prayed that he wished to retire as guardian of the minors/respondents. According to the petitioner the learned trial Court on the same day without issuing notice to the plaintiffs-respondents dismissed the same vide his order dated 29-5-1979 which is impugned here. The learned trial Court has observed that the application did not disclose any sufficient cause for permitting the petitioner to retire as guardian ad litem and that the application has been given only with a view to cause delay in the proceedings.   I asked the learned counsel as to why the petitioner intends to retire and to which the learned counsel has pointed out that he is not in a position to perform his duties as such. It was further stated that the petitioner intended to retire as it would be appropriate that there should be another counsel representing the minors as presently one counsel represents the petitioner as well as the minor defendants. The sufficiency of the cause shall be dealt with at the appropriate stage. I would like to firstly deal with the legal contention raised by the learned counsel. The learned counsel has contended that the provisions of Order XXXII, rule 11, C. P. C. are…