JUDGMENT

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 20th April, 2010 in W.P.(C)No.2622 of 2010. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

“ORDER

20.04.2010

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition as a finding has been given by the respondents, that the petitioner is an insane person and the petition has been filed by the insane person himself and not through the next friend.

In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appropriate petition through the next friend.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for.

All the pending applications are also disposed.”

3. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the appellant on two counts mainly:

i) The High Court failed to decide the question as to whether the appellant is an insane person; and

ii) If so, i.e. if the appellant is insane, the High Court ought not to have allowed the lawyer who received instructions from an insane person to withdraw the case.

4. In this case, it is not nec