' MALIK MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN, J.-This petition for leave to appeal has the following background:- ' Non-petitioner Mohammad Hussain successfully pre-empted the suit land through judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge, Muzaffarabad. In that Court, the petitioner was represented by Mr. Nazir Ahmed, Advocate as his guardian ad item. The petitioner could not get the decree of the Bub- Judge up set both in the Court of the District Judge as well as before the High Court, He failed to get the judgment up set even in his review petition filed before the High Court. It is against this background that the present petition for leave to appeal has been filed in this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following points for acceptance of this petition:
(1) That the petitioner was a minor at the time of the pre-emption suit in the Court of Sub Judge but he was not served with any notice for the appointment of his guardian, Mr. Nash Ahmed, Advocate.
(2) That one Abdul Jabber got Mr. Nazir Ahmed, Advocate appointed as a guardian of the minor but there is no order of the Court to that effect.
(3) That under Order XXXII, rr. (2) & (3) of C. P. C., there ought to have been an application for the appointment of a guardian supported by an affidavit which were not there in the case.
3. We have considered the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner but find little force in them which could justify us the acceptance of this petition. In the very application for the grant of special leave (ride para. 3), it is admitted that Khawaja Abdul Jabber is the uncle of the minor.
Therefore, it cannot be said nor it has been said that Khawaja Abdul Jabber in proposing the name of Mr. Nazir Ahmed, Advocate had any adverse interest against the minor. In fact Khawaja Abdul Jabber had also appeared as a witness of the minor. It is also apparent that Mr. Nazir Ahmed, Advocate had all along been fighting the case for the minor in the Courts of Sub-Jucge, District Judge and the High Court. It was only in review petition that Mr. B. A. Farooqi was engaged by the petitioner. Another factor which goes against the petitioner is that even when the petitioner attained majority and filed the appeal in the High Court, these points were never taken either in the memorandum of appeal or in the arguments addressed before the High Court. It was only in the review petition that for the first time this point was agitated. It is significant to note that there is nothing to show that any prejudice had been caused to the minor in the defence of his suit by Mr. Nazir Ahmed, Advocate. Therefore, the mere fact that in the appointment of the guardian, no notice was served on the minor or there is no clear cut order of the Court in the appointment of the guardian, does not per se render the decisions invalid. We may refer in this respect to PLD 1954 Dacca 69, AIR 1923 Lab. 575 and AIR 1924 Mad.
763. These minor omissions pointed out by that learned counsel for the petitioner are only irregularities and do not in any way render the judgments and decrees of the Courts as invalid unless it is shown that the guardian was either negligent or was in collusion with the other party or there was any fraud committed.
4. For the reasons stated above, we see no force in this petition for leave to appeal and accordingly reject it.