( 1 ) SINCE both the revision petitions arise out of the same suit and between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) C. R. P. No. 1398/2001 is filedchallenging the order dated 28-11-2000 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, nellore in LA. No. 690/2000 in O. S. No. 93/1989. By the said order, the Court below, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 32 Rule 15 read with section 151 C. P. C. to permit one uppalamarthi Venkata Ramana Reddy son of Sankara Reddy to act as guardian to the plaintiff, on the ground that the plaintiff has become infirm to prosecute the suit Further, the Court below while dismissing the I. A. observed that it is open for the wife of the plaintiff to apply to the Court under order 32 Rule 15 C. P. C. to appoint her as the guardian ad litem to prosecute the suit. Aggrieved by this observation, the respondent-defendant had filed this revision petition.

( 3 ) AFTER the disposal of the above I. A. with the observations as stated above, the wife of the plaintiff filed LA. No. 1209 of 2000 in O. S. No. 93/1989 under Order 32 Rule 15 read with Section 151 C. P. C. to permit her to come on record as guardian of the plaintiff to prosecute the suit and the court below by order dated 18-1-2001, allowed the application and permitted her to come on record as the guardian of the plaintiff to prosecute the suit. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent-defendant in the suit filed the other revision petition in C. R. P. No. 1397 of 2001.

( 4 ) SINCE the latter revision petition isconsequential to C. R. P. No. 1398/2001, the discussion in this revision holds good for the two revision petitions and accordingly, I am referring to the impugned order in C. R. P. No. 1398/2001.

( 5 ) BEFORE referring to rival contentions, itis imperative to note few admitted facts on record.

( 6 ) ORIGINALLY the plaintiff filed the suit forrecovery of Rs. 3,44,646/- being the balance amount payable to him by the respondent (sic. petitioner) herein, as the commission in the transactions relating to sale of khazuraho beer manufactured by the respondent (sic. petitioner) and for refund of the deposited amount and for interest etc. The respondent (sic. petitioner) filed the written statement denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff. After framing the issues by the court below, the plaintiff was examined as P. W. I and also cross-examined in part. Thereafter, as the counsel appearing for the respondent (sic. petitioner) reported no instructions, the suit was decreed ex. parte on 3-3-1994. Aggrieved by that order, the defendant in the suit filed C. M. A. No. 393/1995 before this court and this court by order dated 26-11-1997 allowed the appeal and ordered restoration of the suit and accordingly it was restored. At that stage, LA. No. 1012/1999 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to implead the proposed guardian as the 2nd plaintiff in the suit and that application was allowed by order dated 20-12-1999 and the proposed guardian ad litem was impleaded as 2nd plaintiff. Impugning this order, the respondent (sic. petitioner) filed a revision petition before this Court in C. R. P. No. 387/2000 and this court while setting aside the impugned order, directed the court below to conduct an enquiry under Order 32 Rule 15 C. P. C. and pursuant to the same the present LA. No. 690/2000 was filed.

( 7 ) IN the present I. A. , the proposedguardian was examined as P. W. I and the doctor who issued Ex. A-1 medical certificate was examined as P. W. 2.

( 8 ) WHEN the plaintiff was producedbefore the Court, the learned Senior Civil judge also examined him by posing some questions and elicited answers. Basing upon the said examination the learned Judge found that as on 19-9-2000, the plaintiff was apparently suffering from mental imbalance and infirmity who was unable to grasp and understand and not worldly-wise.

( 9 ) FURTHER as observed in the impugnedorder, the evidence of P. W.