MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus NADEEM SHAHID
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption suit involving agricultural land purchased by minors. The core legal question was whether the failure of the trial court to formally appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor defendants rendered the entire proceedings illegal, despite the minors being represented by their paternal grandfather throughout the litigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the absence of a formal appointment order was a mere technicality rather than a fatal defect. The Court observed that the grandfather had acted as the minors' representative during the purchase and had vigorously defended the suit at all stages, including appeals, with no evidence of adverse interest or negligence. The key principle laid down is that where a minor is effectively represented by a natural guardian who actively defends the suit without any conflict of interest, the procedural omission to pass a formal order appointing a guardian ad litem does not vitiate the proceedings or invalidate the decree, as such a failure is considered a technical irregularity rather than a jurisdictional error.
- Does the failure of a trial court to formally appoint a guardian ad litem for minor defendants render the entire proceedings illegal?
- Can a procedural omission to formally appoint a guardian ad litem be cured if the minors were effectively represented by a natural guardian throughout the litigation?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 6‑7‑1986 of the Lahore High Court which affirmed the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura.
2. By a registered sale‑deed dated 29‑10‑1975, the petitioners in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.821, who were minors, purchased through their paternal grandfather, Sheikh Abdul Karim, about 121 kanals of agricultural land in village Pir Kot of Tehsil Sheikhupura for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000. The entire consideration was paid by them before the sub‑Registrar at the time of the registration of the sale‑deed. On 27‑1‑1976, the respondents in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.821 brought the suit for preemption on the assertion that they were owners in the estate in which the land purchased by the petitioners was situated and that the said status was not enjoyed by the petitioners. They further alleged that the price actually fixed and paid was Rs.50,000 and that a fictitious amount of Rs.1,50,000 had been shown in the sale‑deed. As the petitioners were still minors, they were sued through their grandfather, Sh. Abdul Karim.
3. By its judgment dated 1‑7‑1980, the trial Court decreed the suit. Amongst other findings recorded by it, it held that the market price of the land in dispute was only Rs.55,000; accordingly, it directed the respondents to pay Rs.55,000 only for acquiring the land in dispute. ,
4. From the judgment of the trial Court the petitioners as well as the respondents preferred appeals before the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura. Since the petitioners continued to be minors, the appeal on their behalf was filed by Sh. Abdul Karim. The petitioners challenged the legality of the decree in its entirety whereas the respondents questioned the propriety of the amount fixed by the trial Court as the purchase price.
5. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of the respondents and partly accepted the appeal of the petitioners. He held that the amount of Rs.1,50,000 as mentioned in the sale‑deed had been fixed in good faith and actually paid. Consequently, recalled upon the respondents to pay Rs.1,50,000 by way of purchase price `, for the land in dispute.
6. From the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, both the petitioners and the respondents filed second appeals in the High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed both the appeals. The parties now by separate petitions seek leave to appeal from this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents states that in case leave is refused to the petitioners he will not press his petition.
8. On behalf of the petitioners the only contention raised is that as the petitioners were minors at the time when the suit was brought, the trial Court was required to pass an order formally appointing a guardian ad litem to defend the suit on their behalf. As this was not done, the entire proceedings before the trial Court were illegal.
9. There is little merit in this contention. As already mentioned the land in dispute was purchased by the petitioners through their grandfather Sh.Abdul Karim. The respondents sued them through the same person. It was not the case of the petitioners that the interest of Sh. Abdul Karim was in any way adverse to them. Sh. Abdul Karim had been vigorously defending the suit. In fact it was through him that they filed their appeals before the District Judge and the High Court. On our enquiry whether Sh. Abdul Karim had been remiss in any way in representing their interest during the entire course of litigation, learned counsel was unable to give a satisfactory reply. Considering the fact that Sh. Abdul Karim has been recognized as the guardian of the petitioners throughout the! proceedings in the subordinate Courts, the failure of the trial Court to make a formal order of his appointment as guardian ad litem becomes entirely one of technical nature. We are, therefore, not prepared to grant leave to them.
10. For the reasons stated above, both the petitions are dismissed.
M.I./M‑378/S Petitions dismissed.