GURA SINGH Vs. HIRA SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this civil revision against respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patti, vide which the application under Order 32 Rule 15 filed by the defendant-petitioner has been dismissed and the application of respondent-plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC has been allowed, whereas the cause to proceed with the suit do not survive as no enquiry as mandatory under Order 32 Rule 15 was carried out at the time of filing of suit or during the pendency of the suit till the death of the petitioner allegedly stated to be insane.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that enquiry is mandatory under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC by the Court to hold that whether the party is of insane mind or not. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record as well as the impugned order. As per the impugned order, the application under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC has been dismissed and application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC has been allowed. The application under Order 32 Rue 15 CPC has been filed by defendant/respondent with the submissions that the said civil suit for declaration was filed by Harbans Kaur daughter of Tarlok Singh through her next friend Dhira Singh she being insane person. It is mainly in the application that after filing of the present suit, no enquiry regarding insanity of Harbans Kaur was conducted to evaluate her mental condition as required by Order 32 Rule 15 CPC. It is also claimed that the provision of Order 32 Rule 15 CPC is mandatory and therefore, next friend Dhira Singh has no competency to proceed further in the present case and suit should be dismissed. As per reply in the order, the plea regarding estoppel is taken as a similar application was filed by plaintiff at the time of decision of the injunction qua alienation of the suit property and it is held that medical certificate of the plaintiff has proved regarding the unfit state of mental condition of Harbans Kaur and after that status quo was ordered.

(3.) From the record, it is clear that Harbans Kaur has died during the pendency of the case. It is also held in the order that this objection should be taken by the applicant at the earliest available opportunity but the same has been raised by the applicant at the stage of evidence.