' MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J.--The impugned judgment dated 25-9-2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Burewala, in the appeal filed against the order dated 13-9-2008 of learned Guardian Judge, Burewala, was challenged by 'way of civil revision. As against the said judgment, revision was not competent, but writ petition was maintainable, hence revision petition was converted into the writ petition in hand.
2. Through this writ petition, the order dated 25-9-2009, passed by the learned. Additional District Judge, Burewala, whereby in appeal, the order dated 13-9-2008, passed by the learned Guardian Judge, Burewala has been set aside, has been called in question.
3. The facts are that Allah Bukhsh (respondent No, 1) being father of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (both minors) filed an application, before the learned Guardian Judge, Burewala, District Vehari, requesting therein that he may be appointed as guardian of the person and property of the above named minors. The said application was accepted and respondent No, 1 was appointed as guardian of the person and property of the minors. Thereafter, respondent No, 1 preferred an application before the learned Guardian Court, with a request that permission to sale out the property of the minors measuring 17 kanal 6 marla may be accorded and the learned Guardian Court, granted the permission, through order dated 14-2-2005. Accordingly the above mentioned property of the minors was sold by the respondent No, 1 and purchased by the present petitioners, through registered sale deed No 250 dated 7-3-2005. Thereafter, the learned Guardian Court through order dated 19-3-2008 had recalled the order dated 14-2-2005, through which permission of sale of the above property of the minors was granted, with the contention that list of the expenses/sale deed was not submitted by Allah Bukhsh (respondent No, 1), in the Court, within the prescribed period. The present petitioners filed an application before the learned Guardian Judge, for recalling of the order dated 19-3-2008 on the ground' that they had purchased the property through sale deed for valuable consideration and that the expenses/sale deed was to be submitted in the Court by Allah Bukhsh (respondent No, 1), hence for his act, they could not be penalized. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the attending facts and circumstances had passed the order dated 13-9-2008, whereby the above said previous order dated 19-3-2008 was recalled. The minors namely Muhammad Sajid and Tahir Javed (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) preferred appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Burewala against the above mentioned recall order dated 13-9-2008 and the learned Additional District Judge while accepting the appeal had set aside the said order, on 25-9-2009. Hence the petition in hand.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly, when Allah Bukhsh . (respondent No, 1) was appointed as guardian of the person and property of the minors (respondents Nos. 2 and 3), the present petitioners were not in picture. At that time Mst. Rashida Bibi, mother of the above named minors had appeared before the learned Guardian Court and made a consenting statement, whereby she had not objected the appointment of her husband Allah Bukhsh (respondent No, 1) to be the guardian of her above named minor sons. Thereafter, Allah Bukhsh had sought and got permission for sale of the. Property of the minors and the property was sold out to the present petitioners, against the handsome consideration. It was for Allah Bukhsh (respondent No, 1) to submit before the learned Guardian Court, the detail of expenses and the sale deed, bet for the reasons best known to him, he had failed to do so. Therefore, there was no reason, cause or justification for the learned Guardian Judge to cancel the order for sale of the property,because by that time, the sale was finalized and the sale deed was executed in favour of the present petitioners. When the learned Guardian Judge was informed, about the actual situation by the present petitioners, through an application, he justifiably had passed the order dated 13-9-2008 and recalled the previous order dated 19-3-2008.
The said order of recall had not prejudiced any of the parties, but it seems that with maia fide, the appeal was got filed in names of the minors (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) through Mst. Rashida Bibi; their mother, despite the fact that Allah Bukhsh (respondent No, 1) was legally appointed guardian of the minors and as such the above named lady was not at all competent to pose herself to be the guardian of the minors and prefer the appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Burewala without realizing the real facts and circumstances that on one hand, Allah Bukhsh (respondent No, 1) while selling the property of the minors, to the present petitioners had received a huge amount, but on the other hand had got filed the appeal through his wife, despite the fact that in presence of appointed guardian, she was having no authority to file the appeal, had passed the impugned judgment dated 25-9-2009, whereby erroneously the order dated 13-9-2008 of the learned Guardian Judge had been set aside.
6. It is well settled preposition that he, who seeks equity must do equity and he who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. But in the situation in hand, Allah Bukhsh (respondent No, 1) and his wife Mst. Rashida Bibi, in the light of the facts and circumstances narrated above, had not approached the learned Additional District Judge, Burewala with clean hands, but despite that the impugned judgment dated 25-9-2009 had been pronounced, in the manner mentioned above.
7. As a result of the above mentioned discussion, I am of the view that the impugned judgment dated 25-9-2009 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Consequently, by accepting the instant revision petition, the impugned judgment is set aside and the order dated 13-9-2008 of the learned Guardian Judge is restored.