' NASIRA IQBAL, J. -- Petitioner Muhammad Munir has assailed the order dated 11.9.2001, passed by respondent No, 2, learned Guardian Judge, Lahore, whereby, he had allowed the application of respondent No, 1 and set aside the order for ex-parte proceedings against respondent No, 1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner filed applications under Sections 25 and 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act on 6.7.2000 but respondent No, 1 did not appear on several occasions despite service of notice nor did she produce minor despite undertaking of her brother that he will produce the minor in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on PLD 1992 SC 825 and 2001 CLC 1125 to argue that the Courts should not merely sit and watch who commits a mistake but they should take action when there appears disregard of orders of the Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also examined the record.
4. The minor for whose custody the application has been filed by the petitioner is 21/2 years of age and according to affidavit filed by respondent No, 1 the petitioner had agreed to withdraw the case and had requested respondent No, 1 not to appear in Court. Respondent No, 2 has observed that no counter-affidavit was filed by the petitioner to rebut the affidavit filed by respondent No, 1, therefore, order for ex-parte proceedings were set aside and respondent No, 1 had been provided an Opportunity to file written replies to both the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 25 and Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act by 10.10.2001.
5. Interim orders in family proceedings are not appealable for the reason that proceeding should be completed as expeditiously as possible, therefore, this writ petition does not lie Even otherwise, the Court exercises parental jurisdiction in such matters therefore, for safe administration of justice, it is appropriate to allow both the parties an opponunity to present their case. However, since the proceedings filed by the petitioner have already been pending for more than 19 months, respondent No, 2 is directed to conclude the matter expeditiously after hearing both the parties preferably within two months.
6. This petition is disposed of with the above observations.