KHOKHA RAI Vs. XII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition 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 dismissing 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 application 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 disbelieving his version. The revision preferred against this orderwas dismissed.He filed a writ petition in the High Court which was also dismissed.

(3.) The wife of the petitioner, thereafter, filed an application under Order 32, Rule 15, C.P.C. stating therein that her husband Khokha Rai, was totally upset by the fact that he had admitted certain facts in the written statement and, therefore, the suit may be decreed and he will be evicted from the disputed premises. He developed mental infirmity and became of an unsound mind. It was prayed that an enquiry may be conducted in the matter and after coming to the conclusion that the defendant Khokha Rai is incapable of protecting his interest in the suit by reason of his mental infirmity, she may be appointed as a guardian and next friend of her husband. She filed an affidavit in support of the application. The plaintiff-respondent filed counter-affidavit. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the version of the petitioner, rejected it on 30-7-1998 on the finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that her husband was mentally infirm. The revision filed against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 21-10-1998.