R.M. Savant, J.

1. Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 9-1-2014 passed by the Learned 4th Additional Judge of Small Causes Court, Pune, by which order, the application Exhibit 23 filed by the Petitioners herein for appointment of the Petitioner No.2 i.e. the Defendant No.2 to the Suit as guardian of the Petitioner No.3 i.e. the Defendant No.3 came to be rejected.

3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. Suffice it to say that Suit in question being Special Civil Suit No.376 of 2013 has been filed by the Respondent herein for declaration that he is the co-owner to the extent of 1/4th share in the flat in question. The second relief is that the Defendants be restrained by way of permanent injunction from creating any third party right in the suit flat whereby sell, perpetual lease, mortgage or otherwise. The Petitioner No.3 herein claims to be a legate of her mother in respect of 1/2 share of the mother in the flat in question and on the basis of the Will of her father claims to be the full owner of the flat in question. In the said Suit the Will of the mother Sarla A. Dudhbhate is under challenge. It is in the said Suit that the application Exhibit 23 came to be filed in support of the said application. The documents in the form of medical report, psychological report, were sought to be relied upon by the Petitioners amongst other documents. The said documents appear to have been produced before the District Court in the application filed under the Mental Health Act, 1987 (for short the MHA). It seems that prior to the instant application Exhibit 23, the Petitioners have filed an application under Section 50 of the MHA for a declaration that the Petitioner No.3 is of unsound mind. It seems that an application for interim relief was made in the said proceedings. Pursuant to the said application an inquiry was conducted by the Learned District Judge wherein it seems that the Petitioner No.3 was examined before the Court by putting certain questions to her. The said application for interim relief in the said proceedings came to be rejected by the Learned District Judge by holding that the Petitioner No.3 was not of unsound mind. In the instant application Exhibit 23, the Trial Court seems to have relied upon the text of the said examination which was carried out before the Learned District Judge in the application filed under the Mental Health Act and by taking into consideration the answers given by the Petitioner No.3 to the questions put in her examination, as also taking into consideration the final order that was passed by the District Judge, Pune in the interim application, the Trial Court held that there is no necessity to appoint a guardian for the Petitioner No.3 for the purposes of defending the Suit as she is competent to protect her interest. As indicated above, it is the said order dated 9-1-2014 which is taken exception to by way of the above Petition.

4. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners Ms Ahuja would seek to reiterate the case of the Petitioners before the Trial Court and by relying upon the documents which have been placed before the Trial Court would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the application Exhibit 23 was required to be allowed and the guardian was required to be appointed for the Petitioner No.3 to prosecute the Suit in question. The Learned Counsel took me through the documents which have been annexed to the above Petition amongst which is the psychological assessment report of the Pune Hospital and Research Center, which report is under the signature of Ms Rucha Bapat, M.A.M.Phil (Clinical Psychology) as also a report of Dr. Vidyadhar Watve dated 30-3-2010 and also the receipts issued by the Poona Geriatric Care Center which are for the years 2012-2013.

5. Per contra Ms Bhagalia the Lear