' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 6-2-2006 whereby the appeal tiled by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 against the order, dated 10-9-2005 was accepted.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the respondent No,1 filed an application before the Guardian Judge for being appointed as a guardian for the person and property of his minor son and minor brother. The said application was apparently accepted and respondent No,1 was appointed as guardian as prayed for. Thereafter an application was filed before the Guardian Judge by respondent No,1 seeking permission to sell the property belonging to the said minors. Permission as prayed for was granted. Pursuant to the said permission respondent No,1 sold the land in dispute to the present petitioners and Mutations in this regard were recorded.
And allegedly the possession of the land was also transferred. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who are the sisters of respondent No,1, therefore, the sisters and paternal aunt of the minors filed an application before the Guardian Judge questioning the sale in favor of the petitioners. The said application was dismissed by the Guardian Judge vide order, dated 10-9-2005. Aggrieved the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed an appeal which was accepted vide the impugned judgment, dated 6-2-2006 whereby the guardian certificate in favor of respondent No,1 as well as the sale in pursuance thereof in favor of the petitioners was set aside and directions issued for retrieval of possession.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this petition has been perused.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first appellate Court transgressed its jurisdiction by passing the impugned judgment whereby deciding the matter which was not directly an issue before it. It is further contended that by way of the impugned judgment findings of fact have been arrived at without any-inquiry and recording of evidence. And the impugned judgment is based on conjectures and surmises.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No,1 is in fact a drug addict, therefore, disabled from looking after himself let alone the interest of the minors. It is further contended that the petitioners have taken unfair advantage of the said disability of respondent No,1 to the prejudice of the interest of the minors. And it is in the above circumstance that the impugned judgment has been passed by the first appellate Court in its parental jurisdiction.
6. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondents are acting in collusion with each other only to deprive the petitioners of valuable consideration paid by them to respondent No,
1. It is further contended that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers whose interests need to be protected.
7. In the instant case property of the minors is involved. Serious allegations have been made by both sides against each other. Suchallegations can only be determined after a detailed inquiry and if necessary recording of evidence. By way of the impugned judgment the findings of fact have been returned in the absence of recoding of evidence which is perhaps not legally appropriate.
Consequently, interest of justice would be best served if the allegations and counter-allegations are determined through the recording of evidence so that the rights of all the parties including the minors are protected. Consequently, the impugned judgment, dated 6-2-2006 as well as the order, dated 10-9-2005 are set aside and the case is remanded to the Guardian Judge concerned where the application filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 shall be deemed to be pending. The Guardian Judge shall decide the said application afresh, if necessary, after giving the parties including the petitioners opportunity to produce evidence. The Guardian Court is directed to decide the matter within a period of six months from the receipt of this order.
' The Civil Revision is accepted and in the above terms.