1. This is an appeal by a guardian against an order which has subjected him to disciplinary action on the part of the Court under the provisions of Section 45, Clause 1(6), of Act VIII of 1890. The main point taken is that the order appointing the appellant Jaddo Tewari to be guardian of the minor Sri Kant Acharya was made subject to his furnishing certain security. He admittedly failed to furnish the security required and the contention is that by so failing he made his appointment a nullity and ceased to be liable to any action on the part of the District Judge under the provisions of the Act in question. In view of the wording of Section 34. Clause (a), of the Act there seems no force in this contention from a technical point of view. As a matter of fact we note that the appellant did enter into possession and management of the minor's property as his guardian and can scarcely be heard to say that, by failing to comply with one of the orders of the Court, he has escaped the liability for his failure to comply with another. The other points taken in the appeal are of no force. The appellant's subsequent compliance with another order does not relieve him from liability for having failed to comply with the previous order. We dismiss this appeal. As it has been heard ex parte, we make no order as to costs.