Sections 6, 13 and 14 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. XXXII, Rr 2, 3 were sued by his next friend in the name of the minor, which was not related to the modest performance of the holidays until later. The scope suit was dismissed by the trial court, and the order of dismissal was upheld by the appellate court. The defendant may be presented to the minor by his guardian or agent through whom the minor has sued. ? It did not say that it had the legal status and duty to care for the minor and the property due to minor, disqualification or disability, but could not in any way be considered the guardian of the minor pre-emptor. The next friend of the minor confessed to himself that the chief stated in his examination that he was a distant relative of the minor and stated that the plaintiff was his son, but he could not say the name of the khalid, in any court. Did not authorize the person to file and pursue the case for pre-arrest arrest. The same dispute for plaintiff's lawyer that said the person was a guardian ad, was a misunderstood person with no direct connection to the minor, no minor property because of his childhood, incompetence and disability. There was no legal authority or obligation. He could neither negotiate under sections 13 and 14 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991, nor could he file a case for possession by pre-arrest, especially when the defendant's mother at the time of the sale transaction. Was alive, the older brother was also older and able to care for the interests of the minor / the plaintiff
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
