JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against three orders made under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The appellant, Jagannath Panja, along with another person, Sashi Bhusan Kandar, was en the 25th of April 1911 appointed guardian of the property of an infant named Manmotha Nath Panja. On the 31st July 1913, the respondent Mahesh Chandra Pal, who alleges that he is a brother of the step-mother of the infant, made an application to the District Judge and prayed that the guardians might be called upon to file and to explain the accounts. Notices were thereupon served on the guardians to appear and explain why they had not filed the accounts. Some accounts, which were then filed on behalf of the guardians, were examined by the translator; his report disclosed that the original account books and vouchers were required for the proper scrutiny of the accounts. Abstracts of accounts and vouchers were subsequently filed by the guardians and supplemental accounts also were brought into Court, which the translator was directed to examine. On the 3rd December 1913, Mahesh Chandra Pal was granted permission to inspect the accounts and the translator was directed to note the objections. The translator submitted his report on or about the 10th February 1914, and on that date the 26th February was fixed for the guardian to appear so that an attempt might be made to secure some more satisfactory arrangement." This evidently had reference to the report of the translator which showed that, if his view was correct, the management of the estate of the infant had been far from satisfactory. This was followed by subsequent orders in which the question was considered whether a fresh guardian of property might not, with advantage to the infant, be appointed, and en the 23rd April 1914, the appellant as also his colleague were removed from the office of guardians of the estate of the minor on the ground that they were not trustworthy. They were, however, not discharged, and were called upon to bring into Court Rs. 300 which was stated by them to have been in their hands on the 16th April 1914. They were also directed to produce a sum of Rs. 500 or Rs, 600 alleged to have been realised by them by the sale of paddy. Up to this stage, no notice had been served upon the guardians of any application to remove them from the guardianship of the infant; nor had they been called upon to show cause why they should not be so removed. On the 23rd April 1914, the appellant prayed that an enquiry might be made as to the truth of the charges brought against him by his colleague who, upon his own motion, had been discharged from guardianship on that date. On the 7th May 1914, the Court recorded an order that neither of the two guardians of the property had produced Rs. 300 and that contrary to the statements said to have been made before the Court on a previous occasion, each now alleged that the other held the money realised by sale of the paddy. The Court thereupon proceeded to impose a fine of Rs. 50 each on the appellant and the other guardian u/s 45(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act. The order further directed that if the previous directions of the Court were not carried out in the course of five days, a daily fins of Rs. 10 would be imposed on each guardian from the following day. On that date, the respondent Mahesh Chandra Pal, who had moved the Court, and initiated these proceedings, was appointed temporary guardian both of the person and property of the infant. On the 6th June 1914, there is an order recorded in the order-sheet that the fine imposed upon the appellant must be realised and that he must bring into Court Rs. 150 as the value of the paddy in his hands. It may be mentioned here that a sum of Rs. 150 had already heen brought into Court by the other guardian who was discharged at his own instance. This appeal is directed against the order of the 23rd April, whereby the appellant was removed from the guardianship, as also the orders of the 7th May a