Ex-Parte Decree in a Guardian case can be set-aside
PLJ 2015 Lahore 748 · Lahore High Court
This case concerns minors whose property rights were at stake in a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement. When their father died during the lawsuit, the minors were brought into the case as his legal heirs. Since they were minors, the trial court appointed court officials, a reader and later another court employee, as their guardian ad litem, meaning someone to represent their interests in court. However, this appointed guardian failed to properly defend the minors, most critically by not cross-examining key witnesses whose testimony formed the basis of the decree against them. As a result, an ex parte decree was passed against the minors. When they later asked the trial court to set aside this decree, citing the guardian's negligence and fraud, the trial court refused.
The Lahore High Court disagreed with the trial court. It held that a guardian ad litem is a trustee of the minor's rights and must actively protect their interests. If a decree is obtained because the guardian failed in this duty, even without proving intentional fraud, the minor should not be bound by it. The court also noted it was improper to appoint a court official as guardian when the children's mother was alive and had not been properly asked whether she wished to take on that role.
The High Court therefore set aside the trial court's dismissal and ordered the ex parte decree set aside, allowing the minors to defend the case properly, with their mother's involvement. This case matters because it reinforces that courts must ensure minors are genuinely and competently represented in litigation, not just formally assigned a guardian.
یہ مقدمہ ان نابالغ بچوں سے متعلق ہے جن کے جائیداد کے حقوق ایک دیوانی مقدمے میں داؤ پر لگے ہوئے تھے، جو ایک معاہدے کی مخصوص تعمیل (اسپیسفک پرفارمنس) کے لیے دائر کیا گیا تھا۔ مقدمے کی سماعت کے دوران جب ان کے والد کا انتقال ہوگیا تو نابالغ بچوں کو ان کے قانونی ورثاء کے طور پر مقدمے میں شامل کیا گیا۔ چونکہ وہ نابالغ تھے، اس لیے ٹرائل کورٹ نے عدالتی عملے کے افراد، پہلے ایک ریڈر اور بعد میں ایک اور عدالتی ملازم کو، ان کا گارڈین ایڈ لائٹم مقرر کیا، یعنی ایسا شخص جو عدالت میں ان کے مفادات کی نمائندگی کرے۔ تاہم مقرر کردہ گارڈین نے نابالغوں کا دفاع مناسب طریقے سے نہیں کیا، اور سب سے اہم بات یہ کہ اس نے ان اہم گواہوں پر جرح نہیں کی جن کی گواہی کی بنیاد پر بچوں کے خلاف ڈگری دی گئی۔ نتیجتاً نابالغوں کے خلاف یک طرفہ (ایکس پارٹی) ڈگری جاری کر دی گئی۔ جب بعد میں انہوں نے گارڈین کی غفلت اور دھوکہ دہی کا حو