MITHILESH CHAUHAN Vs. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 22nd August, 2007 of the trial court. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit against the petitioner herein for ejectment of the petitioner from immovable property after the determination of tenancy of the petitioner, recovery of rent, mesne profits etc. The petitioner through her daughter filed a written statement. It was, inter alia, stated in the said written statement that the petitioner is mentally sick, suffering from psychiatric disease for the last several years and the documents on the basis whereof the respondent/plaintiff had instituted the suit had also been got executed by the respondent/plaintiff taking advantage of the said illness of the petitioner. The daughter of the petitioner who had filed the said written statement on behalf of the petitioner thereafter also filed an application under Order 32 Rule 3 (2) of the CPC for appointment of herself as the guardian of the petitioner for the purposes of the suit. It was stated in the said application that the petitioner herein is suffering from mental illness and psychiatric disease and is not in her full senses and is unable to take decisions for herself. The respondent/plaintiff contested the said application by filing a reply. It was controverted that the petitioner is mentally ill and it was further pleaded that the said plea has been taken malafide.

(2.) THE trial court vide order impugned in this petition dismissed the said application of the daughter of the petitioner. The trial court has held that the petitioner in the written statement, filed through her daughter, had taken inconsistent stands; while at one place it was stated that the petitioner was ill at the time of execution of the documents relating to property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, at another place the fact of the execution of the very same document has been denied. The trial court further held that no material had been placed before the court to show that the petitioner was unable to take her decisions or that a guardian was required for the purposes of the present suit. The trial court thus did not feel the need to hold any inquiry also into the status of mind of the petitioner.

(3.) THIS petition has also been preferred by the petitioner through her daughter. This court on 19th December, 2007 issued notice of this petition to the respondent and also stayed further proceedings in the suit. The respondent has failed to appear inspite of service and inspite of further proceedings in the suit having been stayed. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard.