BALBIR SINGH Vs. GURPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners, in this case prays to quash the impugned order dtd. 8/10/2021, passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 1123 of 2018, whereby his application for referring the respondent no.4 to a team of medical experts to consider whether the respondent no. 4 is mentally sound or not, has been rightly rejected, as there is no document available or filed on the record on behalf of the present petitioner claiming the respondent no. 4 to be a mentally unsound person. Moreover, there is no averment as to what are the reasons, for which, he considers to respondent no. 4 to be a mentally unsound person. In that view of the matter, the writ application is devoid of merit and the order passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, District Dehradun cannot be interfered with.

(3.) The second payer is to direct the 4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun to decide the question of maintainability of the application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In our considered opinion, such an application should not be considered at this stage as the application is only an interim application for restoration of the appeal dismissed for default. If the applicant has any objection, he may raise the same, at the final hearing of the application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code, which shall be considered on its own merit. The practice of fragmenting and fracturing a civil litigation, by filing such petitions on maintainability and similar applications should be discouraged and it shall be against the public policy to decide a matter in a fractured manner.