' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution is directed against the Sindh High Court order, dated 18-10-2000 whereby learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the exercise of discretion by an Additional District Judge in appeal arising out of interlocutory orders passed by a Guardian Court in relation to the custody of minor child.
2. Operative part of the order impugned before the High Court reads as follows:-- ' "Accordingly both the orders dated 25-2-2000 and 29-2-2000, are set aside and allow the appeal.
The Trial Court is expected to decide the case on merits keeping in view the welfare and well-being of minors.
' The trial Court shall restore the position with regard to the custody of the minor as it was at the time of filing of case as the parties are not expected to change the position during the pendency of the case by show of force.
' The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12-10-2000, for further proceedings.
Parties to bear their own costs."
2. While dismissing the Constitutional Petition learned Judge in the High Court expressed the view that the impugned order could not be held to have been passed in excess of jurisdiction, ultra vices or illegal merely because a party was aggrieved by it. Furthermore, since no jurisdictional error had been pointed out and nothing had been shown to conclude that the impugned order was illegal or perverse, jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution could not be invoked.
3. Learned Advocate-on-Record appearing in support of this petition was at pains to persuade us that after the remand of the case to the Guardian Court in the event of production of the minor before the Court by the petitioner for visitation by the respondent she might kidnap the minor, we regret, we cannot subscribe to this unfounded and misconceived apprehension of the learned counsel as the custody of a minor must be regulated in accordance with consistent practice and law of the land by a Guardian Court having regard to the Supreme interest of welfare and well being of the minor. Prima facie, learned High Court did not commit any error of law by not interfering with the discretionary order passed by the Appellate Court and in our view Constitutional jurisdiction was rightly declined in the circumstances of the case.
4. Learned counsel also attempted to argue on the merits of the case. We are afraid and not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case which is pending before a competent Court of law as it might prejudice the interest of either of the parties. Suffice it to say, impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting our interference in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. Petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.