(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 30-7-1998, rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner to appoint next friend of the petitioner as he is of unsound mind and the order dated 21-10-1998 dis missing the Revision against the aforesaid order.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that respondent No. 3 filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner, Khokha Rai. The petitioner filed a written statement in the suit admitting various facts stated in the plaint. Subsequently he filed an applica tion alleging that he had engaged Ram Bahadur Singh, Advocate who colluded with the plaintiff and got a wrong written- statement filed jeopardising his interest. He is almost an illiterate person and he only puts his signatures on the papers. The trial Court rejected this application dis believing his version. The revision preferred against this order was dismissed, e filed a writ Petition in the High Court which was also dismissed.
(3.) THE petitioner had filed an af fidavit in support of her version. She had also filed medical prescriptions of one Dr. A. K. Tandon. In the Revision it is alleged that she filed three papers, first medical prescriptions of S. R. N. Medical College dated 1-9-1998 about the medical treat ment of Dr. A. K. Tandon, the second prescription of the same date about his heart ailment under the treatment of Dr. D. K. Agrawal and third one was the leaflet of E. C. G. in respect of the heart of the defendant. THE petitioner did not file any certificate from the Doctor who is alleged to have treated the petitioner to show that he was of unsound mind. THE prescriptions itself did not show that the defendant was either of unsound mind or mentally infirm. THE application can be decided on the basis of the affidavit filed by a party as contemplated under Order XIX, Rule 1, CPC. It was for the applicant to establish prima facie that the defendant was of un sound mind.