The plaintiff in O.S.No.343 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge. City Civil court. Hyderabad filed this Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2000 in I.A.No.3653 of 1998 appointing Court guardian to represent the 6th defendant in the suit.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The revision petitioner filed O.S.No-343 of 1998 seeking a decree for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.l in the suit. who is the 1st respondent herein, is the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant No.6 is the younger brother of the plaintiff. Pending the suit the defendants filed I.A No.3653 of 1998 under Order 32. Rule 3 of CPC seeking to appoint the first defendant as guardian for the 6th defendant. The Ist defendant- mother sworn to the affidavit stating that the defendant No.6 is insane and that though the plaintiff is fully aware of the said fact. he failed to take any steps for appointment of guardian for the 6th defendant. She also stated that the defendant No.6 is in her care and custody and that she has no adverse interest against the 6th defendant and accordingly sought to appoint her as the guardian of the 6th defendant in O.S.No-343 of 1998. The plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a counter stating that the 6th defendant is not insane, but he is only deaf and dumb. He also alleged that the Ist defendant has colluded with her daughter and she will not protect the interest of the 6th defendant and therefore, pleaded to dismiss the application.

3. The court below by order dated 4.2.2000 appointed Sri V. Prataprao, Advocate as guardian to represent the 6th defendant in O.S.No.343 of 1998. Aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff filed the Present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Order 32. Rule 15 of Civil Procedure Code empowers the court to appoint a proper person to be the guardian for persons of unsound mind but before appointing the guardian it is mandatory for the court to make necessary enquiry and record a finding that the person is incapable of protecting his interest by reason of his mental infirmity. In the instant case. since the court below has not conducted any such enquiry, the learned counsel contends that the impugned order is in violation of the mandatory requirement under Rule 15 of Order 32 CPC and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that Rule 15 of Order 32 CPC enables appointment of guardian only in respect of a person of ‘unsound mind’ and in the instant case the 6th defendant being only deaf and dumb, the court below has erred in exercising the power under Rule 15 of Order 32 of CPC and appointing a guardian for the 6th defendant.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiff in his counter though denied the fact that the 6th defendant is insane, he himself admitted that he is deaf and dumb and he also did not dispute the fact that the 6th defendant is incapable of protecting his interest. Therefore, he contends that no further adjudication is necessary and the order under revision cannot be said to be in violation of the provisions under Order 32, Rule 15 of CPC. He further contends that a person who is incapable of either to speakor to hear can certainly be treated as a person who is incapable of protecting his interest, and therefore, the Court below has rightly appointed a guardian for the 6th defendant in exercise of powers under Rule 15 of Order 32 of CPC and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

7. For appreciating the contentions of the respective parties, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions under Order 32 of Civil Procedure Code, which deals with suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind.

Order XXXII (Suits By or