IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the trial Court's order allowing a next friend to represent a plaintiff suffering from mental infirmity, emphasizing the mandatory duty to ascertain mental capacity under Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC.

ORDER :

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the District Judge Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.5A/2017, whereby, an application under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the next friend (daughter of Respondent No.1) to pursue the Suit because her mother is suffering from mental infirmity, was allowed.

2. Necessary facts for adjudication of the present petition are that earlier, the petitioner had also filed a writ petition viz WP(227) No.367/2020 before this Court challenging the order dated 21.01.2020 passed in Civil Suit No.5A/2017 by the 3rd Additional District Judge Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.), by which the application filed by the daughter of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 has been allowed and she has been permitted to represent the plaintiff in the Civil Suit. The said Writ Petition was dispose of vide order dated 19.06.2020 by observing that as no enquiry was done as it is provided under Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC, so the suitable order may be passed in that respect after making an enquiry. After such order, the learned trial Court has made an enquiry and passed the impugned order. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings arrived at by the trial Court is not justified. Plaintiff is not of unsound mind even she had filed a Civil Suit No.226A/2013, for declaration of death of her husband before the Civil Court, Raipur and she had also passed Class 10th in the year 2015 from open school. He lastly submits that statement of Dr. Vatsala Mariyam, Psychiatrist was not properly appreciated. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the impugned order is not sustainable and he prays to allow the petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1/Plaintiff would support the impugned order and would submit that to ascertain the fact of the mental infirmity, the trial Court itself has put certain questions and after evaluating the statement of the Psychiatrist, reached to the conclusion that mother of the next friend, who is the plaintiff herein due to such mental disease or infirmity could not protect her interest in proper and sufficient manner. He would further submit that mental infirmity could be cast for the various reasons, even when a person reached to the advance age. He would further submit that even a brilliant student when suffers from severe depression, is not able to take proper decision during such illness unless properly recovered. He places reliance in the matter of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh v. Jitender Singh And Others (2007) 14 SCC 765. In this case, a team of doctors have given an opinion that the condition of Maharaja about recent memory, recall, calculation, writing are impaired. Considering this overall mental state, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Rajasthan High Court to appoint a guardian ad litem for the petitioner therein keeping in view his best interest. Lastly he submits that no case is made out warranting any interference invoking supervisory jurisdiction. He prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

6. Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC clearly stipulates that the Rule 1 to 14 (except Rule 2-A) shall apply to persons of unsound mind. It also governs the Suit by or against a person with mental incapacity and the same reads as under:-

“R.15. Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) to apply to persons of unsound mind.-Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) shall, so far as may be, apply to persons adjudged, before or during the pendency of the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to persons who, though not so adjudged, are found by the Court on enquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interests when suing or being sued.”

7. From reading of the af