- (1.) RAM Janam Singh, J. This second appeal has been filed by Geeta RAM against the order dated 14-10-1992 passed by learned Additional Commis sioner, Meerut Division, by which the learned Court below has remanded the case back to the trial Court for fresh decision on the points of dispute.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. On scening the judgment of the Courts below, I am surprised to note that none of them have mentioned any thing about the age of Raj Kumar, applicant opposite-party and on this point too when the initial suit was instituted before the trial Court and it was said to have been finally disposed of and who was the guar dian appointed by the Court or who was the guardian whose names was mentioned in the plaint originally when the suit was filed before the trial Court. Legally when any suit is instituted before the competent Court against a minor person, then under the guardianship Act the mother is the natural guardian and not the father. The finding of the learned trial Court that the father is the natural guardian is contrary to the legal provisions. Father can only be a legal and natural guardian in case mother is not alive. Applicant-opposite party Raj Kumar has no faith in his father because the conduct and character of his father is against the interest of the minor. On these points, the learned Additional Commis sioner instead of deciding the suit itself has remanded it back for restoration only. After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and look ing into the record, I am of the view that the restoration application of the minor deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the case is sent back to learned trial Court for fresh decision on the i\unas after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.
(3.) WITH this observation the second appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of. .;