SARITA DEVI Vs. RAM BABU ALIAS RAM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Sri B. N. Agarwal the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. C. Dwivedi, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff and has filed a suit praying for the specific performance of an agreement and in the alternative for the refund of the money advanced to the defendant. THE defendant appeared before the trial Court and moved an application for an appointment of a guardian stating therein that he was of unsound mind and was unable to contest the suit. In support of his application, the defendant filed medical prescriptions as documentary evidence. THE petitioner filed his objection stating therein that the defendant was of sound mind and that the application of the defendant was liable to be rejected. THE trial Court allowed the application of the defendant and permitted the defendant to pursue the litigation through a guardian. THE plaintiff filed a revision which was rejected. Consequently, the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) FROM a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear, that the Court is required to hold an inquiry to find out that by reason of any mental infirmity, the defendant is unable to protect his interest when being sued and therefore, it is necessary for the Court to come to a conclusion that the defendant is of unsound mind and is unable to protect his interest. FROM a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the trial Court had not made any inquiry and had permitted the defendant to contest the suit through a guardian on the basis of medical prescriptions, which in the opinion of the Court, is insufficient to come to the conclusion that the defendant was of unsound mind. The Court was required to hold an inquiry and come to a conclusion that the defendant was of unsound mind and was incapable of protecting his interest.