KASHI BAI Vs. KASHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have called in question the sustainability of the order dated 11-10-99 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Class-II, Raisen in Civil Suit No. 19-A/99.

(2.) THE facts as have been undraped are that the non- applicant No. 1 as plaintiff instituted the aforesaid civil suit against the applicants as well as non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The present applicants are defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and the non-applicant No. 2 is the defendant No. 1. The present applicants after appearing filed an application under Order XXXII Rules 3 and 15 of the Code stating, infer alia, that the defendant No. 1, Bhairo Singh, is the husband of defendant No. 2 and father of defendant No. 3 and is a person of unsound mind and has been availing treatment at Gwalior Mental Hospital and is unable to defend his rights in the Court. In this backdrop it was prayed that a guardian ad litem be appointed so that through him the defendant No. 1 can protect his rights. The aforesaid application was resisted by the plaintiff by setting-forth that the defendant No. 1 is not mentally unsound and such a plea has been advanced in a malafide mariner to wriggle out of the sale-deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) AFTER the application was filed and objection was raised by the plaintiff the learned Trial Judge procured the attendance of defendant No. 1 and examined him by putting questions relating to controversy involved in the suit. The learned Trial Judge came to hold that by examination of defendant No. 1 it was not perceptible that he was of unsound mind. The Court below also addressed himself with regard to documents filed to substantiate the plea that the defendant No. 1 is of unsound mind and on scrutiny of the said documents opined that there was no single document which indicate that the defendant No. 1 was of unsound mind. The learned Trial Judge also came to hold that no medical certificate was produced showing that defendant No. 1 was suffering from any mental illness. He also commented that there was over-writing on medical prescriptions. Being of this view he rejected the application preferred by defendant Nos. 2 and 3.