JASBIR SINGH Vs. SUKHWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition brought by the petitioner, who is next friend of Smt. Narinder Kaur under the provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Amritsar, vide which considering the application of the defendants-respondents filed under Order 32 Rule 15 Civil Procedure Code, the course of the trial has been changed and Smt. Narinder Kumar, the next friend of the plaintiff has been directed to produce Jasbir Singh in the court on 05.11.2011.

(2.) The suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner/co-sharer in joint possession with defendants no. 3 to 5 of land measuring 35 kanals 4 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Rakh Manawala, Tehsil and District Amritsar has also challenged the sale deeds which are in favour of defendants no.1 and 2. The plaintiff Jasbir Singh has been claimed to be a person of unsound mind and for that reason, the suit has been brought by Jasbir Singh through Smt. Narinder Kaur, his wife as his next friend. Under the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15 Civil Procedure Code,it has been laid down that Rules 1 to 14(except Rule 2-A) relating to minors shall, so far as may be, apply to persons adjudged, before or during the pendency of the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to persons who, though not so adjudged, are found by the court on inquiry to be incapable , by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued.

(3.) On 23.09.2010, learned counsel for the plaintiff had made a statement before learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar that he did not press his applications under Order 32 Code of Civil Procedure and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure at that stage. Learned trial court then observed that the fact regarding unsoundness of the mind of the plaintiff shall be established by evidence of the plaintiff. Noticing that compromise was not effected between the parties, learned trial court framed the issues and fixed the case for 15.02.2011 for evidence of the plaintiff. In the absence of the intervening orders, I take notice of order dated 12.09.2011 whereby the court has noticed the absence of Jasbir Singh in the proceedings and has further noticed that learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed a certificate issued by the doctor. In those circumstances, learned trial court fixed the case for evidence of the plaintiff on 05.10.2011 and directed the plaintiff to appear for his cross-examination.