'MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- The facts gleaned from the records quisitioned and the documents accompanying this F.A.O. Are that the appellant and 4 others purchased land measuring 20 Kanals being 400/1378 share of land measuring 86 Kanals, 18 Marlas comprising Khewat No,2113/2094 situate in village Chah Tobakhianwala Dakhli Chiniot No,2, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang, from respondent No,1 and her son Tariq Hussain respondent No,7 vide registered sale-deed dated 31-7- 2003 executed on behalf of the said vendors by Noor Ahmad appointed as a general attorney vide document registered on 22-7-2003. On 13-12-2003 a suit was filed by Tariq Hussain against the said persons seeking a declaration that the said power of attorney and the sale-deed are illegal and void. The appellants also got a case registered against several persons including Majid Hussain the brother of the said Tariq Hussain vide case F.I.R. No,633 dated 10-12-2004 under sections 447/ 379/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station City Chiniot. This F.I.R. Was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No,4470 of 2005 filed by the said Majid Hussain. Judgment dated 31-5-2005 was questioned in C.P.No,1327-L of 2005 and the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment dated 9-3-2006 converted the same into an appeal and allowed the same.
2. Meanwhile on 22-6-2005 the said Majid Hussain filed an application under section 29 of the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001, for a declaration that Tariq Hussain is a person of unsound mind.
This application was allowed vide order dated 23-2-2006. Tariq Hussain was declared to be a person of unsound mind and Majid Hussain was appointed as his guardian with a direction to perform his duties in the light of section 37 of the said Ordinance.
3. I may note here that on 20-2-2006 with reference to the said order the suit filed by Tariq Hussain was withdrawn by Majid Hussain and was dismissed as such.
4. Present F.A.O. Has been filed by the said vendees from Tariq Hussain and his mother against the said order dated 23-2-2006 of learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that in the said background where civil and criminal proceedings were already going on, Majid Hussain respondent No,2 maliciously concealed the factum of the said alienation in their favour and did not implead them as party and obtained an order which has caused prejudice to the valuable rights of the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that a notice to the public-at-large was issued. His further contention is that the matter can be adjudicated upon in a suit, which may be filed by the said Majid Hussain regarding the said alienation.
6. I have gone through the said records. Before I proceed further, I may note here that I had summoned Tariq Hussain in person. He appeared on 17-3-2009. I put several questions to him but he did not respond at all. To somewhat similar effect is the report filed by the Board constituted under the orders of the learned ADJ to examine Tariq Hussain. This report is available at page 85 of the trial Court record. The report was submitted after keeping Tariq Hussain under observation from 19-9-2005 to 27-9-2005.
7. I have already mentioned above that the power of attorney was allegedly registered on 22-7- 2003 by Tariq Hussain and his mother and the sale-deed was executed by the attorney on 31-7- 2003 in favour of the appellants. The application was filed by Majid Hussain on 22-6-2005. So far as the validity of the said sale is concerned, it will have to be determined with reference to the said dates i,e, that fact as to what was the State of mind of Tariq Hussain on the said dates will have to be adjudicated upon. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the light of the said observations.
8. A copy of this judgment be remitted to the learned Additional District Judge (successor-in- office) who will examine the provisions of the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001, particularly section 31 onwards. To my mind the file ought not to have consigned to the record as the learned Judge has to monitor constantly performance of duties imposed upon a guardian appointed by him in accordance with the provisions of the said Ordinance, 2001. The learned Additional District Judge shall proceed accordingly to satisfy himself as to whether the Guardian is performing his duties or not. No orders as to costs.