1. One Hnsammat Janakraj Kuari, 11, pardanashin lady, applied to the District Judge of Grorakhpur, asking that she may be appointed guardian to her minor son Pashpat Nath. The Judge fixed the 10th of July, 1908, for hearing the application. Upon that date the lady was entitled to produce evidence in support of her application, and according to law the Court was bound to hear such evidence as might be adduced by her. The lady produced no evidence so far as we can ascertain from the record or from the learned Vakil, who appears here on her behalf. The District Judge sent, as he was entitled to do under Section 46, to the Munsif calling upon him for a rep in as to the fitness of the lady for guardianship. The Munsif took evidence, and apparently all the evidence produced before him, and in due course, submitted his report to the District Judge. The Judge, it then appeal's, treated the report submitted to him as evidence. He also examined the minor, and the minor objected to his mother being appointed guardian, on the ground that she was a pardanishin lady in the hands of an object Sarju Prasad, and under her mangement Government revenue had got heavily into arrears. Taking both these matters into consideration, the Judge refused to appoint Musammat Janakraj Kuari guardian. She comes in appeal to this Court, and on her behalf it is contended that the Court should not have decided the case upon the report of the Munsif. In support of this we are referred to the cases of Ganesh Vithal Jade v. Kusabai 23 B. 698, and Narayan Shridhar Dharne v. Ram Chandra Konddev 26 B. 716. In the first of these cases, the District Judge did not fix a date for hearing the application and in the second, case too, the District. Judge without fixing a date practically transferred the case to the 'Subordinate Judge. He handed over the whole of the enquiry to that officer. This distinguishes both the cases from the present case, where the District Judge did fix a date. It was the applicant's duty to adduce her evidence on that date. The District Judge having come to the conclusion that the lady was not fit to be appointed as guardian, we should require the strongest possible evidence to the contrary before we imposed upon the Judge, as intermediary between the Judge and the minor, a lady whom he considers unfit to perform the duties of guardian. The appeal is dismissed with costs which will in this Court include fees on the higher scale.