- (1.) Defendant-Hemlata, who is mother of respondents/plaintiffs Akash & Sagar minors, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing orders of both the courts below whereby temporary injunction has been granted restraining the defendant-petitioner from alienating the suit property and from creating charge over it during pendency of the suit. 2 .Suit on behalf of minor plaintiffs has been instituted through their father Ashok Kumar as their next friend/guardian. Defendant-petitioner by filing petition under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (in short, the Act) sought permission from the Guardian Court vide judgment dated 05.09.2008 Annexure P-1 to sell the property of the minor plaintiffs. In the suit, the said permission obtained by defendant-petitioner has been challenged. Along with suit, plaintiffs sought temporary injunction which has been granted by trial Court vide order dated 03.09.2010 Annexure P-2 and affirmed by lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.09.2011 Annexure P-3. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 4. The petitioner instituted petition under Section 8 of the Act to seek permission to sell the property of the minors without impleading the father of the minors as party, although he was most necessary party to the said petition being father of the minors. Consequently, on the basis of permission obtained by defendant-petitioner vide judgment Annexure P-1, without impleading father of the minors as party, the defendant-petitioner has been rightly restrained from alienating the property of the minors during the pendency of the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that father of the minors is a drug addict as held in judgment Annexure P-1. The contention is very deceptive and misconceived and cannot be accepted. A person cannot be condemned unheard. Father of the minors was not party to the petition in which judgment Annexure P-1 was passed. Consequently the said judgment can have no bearing against the father of the minors. On the other hand, malafide of the petitioner is writ large in not impleading the father of the minors as party to the aforesaid petition. There is no explanation whatsoever for not impleading the father of the minors as party to the said petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that Courts below have erred in observing that in view of Section 6 of the Act, father of the minors is the guardian and only after him, the mother would be guardian of the minors. It was submitted that both mother and father stand on equal footing. Without commenting on this contention, suffice to notice that even if both father and mother are equal guardians of the minors, even then defendantmother alone, without even impleading the father of the minors as party to the petition, could not have sought permission to sell the property of the minors. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Temporary injunction has been rightly granted by the courts below. Act and conduct of the petitioner in obtaining permission to sell property of the minors secretly and surreptitiously without impleading father of the minors has to be disapproved. There is no infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent orders of the Courts below so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The instant revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. However nothing observed hereinbefore shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. 8. Petition dismissed.;