The main legal point established in the judgment is that in appropriate cases, the court has ample jurisdiction under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall its previous order, and if fraudulent suppression of notice is established, the court can recall its previous ex parte order appointing a guardian.

R.K.Choudhary, J.

1. This is an application by the mother of a minor girl Bibi Ruksana against an order refusing to reconsider the order appointing the opposite party who is the grandfather of the minor as guardian of the person ant) property of the minor under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act.

2. The short facts are these. On 7-7-1951, Zahuruddin, father of the minor girl, died leaving a widow, the petitioner, and the minor child. Sometime in March, 1952, the petitioner remarried the brother of her former deceased husband. On 21-5-1955, the opposite party namely the grandfather of the minor girl, made an application before the District Judge of Bhagalpur for his being appointed as guardian of her person and properties. On 6-6-1955 the Court ordered for service of general notices and also for service of notice on the petitioner. On 10-6-1955, the opposite party himself received all the notices including the notice of the petitioner. On 7-7-1955, the petitioner was, however, divorced by her second husband and she went to live with her father at his house. As no one objected to the appointment of the opposite party as the guardian of the minor, he was appointed a guardian of her person and properties on 23-7-1955. On 4-8-1955, the petitioner alleged, she got knowledge of the above appointment and on 8-8-1955, she filed objection to his appointment and made a prayer for re-calling the order of appointment. This application was dismissed by the learned Second Additional District Judge who heard it and hence this civil revision application has been presented by her in this Court.

3. The learned Additional District Judge rejected the application of the petitioner on two grounds, namely, (1) that the application was barred by Section 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act and (2) that no fraud was practised by Kabiruddin, the opposite party, in the matter of service of notices on Bibi Walima, the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional District Judge has held that the order appointing the guardian does not amount to a decree and so the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C., are inapplicable. The view that lie has taken is perfectly correct in this regard. He has further held, as already observed, that Sec. 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act which provides that an order made under that Act is final and could not be liable to be contested by suit or otherwise, was a bar to this application. True it ia that under this section an order made under this act except in certain cases enumerated therein is final and is not liable to be contested by suit or otherwise. But it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court has ample jurisdiction to recall an order passed under this Act in appropriate cases. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rashmoni Dasi V/s. Gunada Sundari Dasi, 26 Ind Cas 275 : (AIR 1915 Cal 49) (A). In this case it was held that Sec. 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act did not preclude the District Judge from reconsidering his order and that he had jurisdiction to entertain the application for revocation of his order in the exercise of his inherent power. It was further held that the principle of Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable quite as much to Courts called upon to deal with matters under the Guardians and Wards Act as to ordinary civil Courts and, therefore, a Court which exercises powers under the Guardians and Wards Act has ample inherent jurisdiction to deal with matters brought before it of which cognizance may be required in the interest of justice. It was also held that a Court is competent to recall an order obtained from it by suppression or misrepresentation of facts. As against this Counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on another Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Kamini Mayi Debi V/s. Bhusan Chandra Ghose, AIR 1926 Cal 1193