IMPORTANT POINTS
" The next friend, who is the brother of deceased Rohini, had no independent legal right to institute a suit during the life time of Rohini-He could not have been joined as a co-plaintiff in the suit during her life time-Viewing from any angle, it will be clear that death of Rohini would exterminate the litigation for the reason that the suit was not instituted by her and the next friend had no locus standi to continue such a litigation-Impleadment of the legal heirs of the alleged plaintiff is a legal impossibility and therefor inconceivable
" The legality and propriety of the enquiry conducted by the trial court under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code. Unfortunately, Rohini died pending the appeal-Deceased Rohini was depicted as the plaintiff in a plaint to which she did not subscribe her signature. The trial court, rightly or wrongly, found that she was capable of prosecuting the case by herself without the help of a next friend-Death of Rohini, the mistress to the suit, put an end to the litigation.

At times, facts are stranger than fiction. Sudden turn of events can impact on the fortunes of a human being, likewise the litigations are also unfavourably affected. Narration of facts will justify the above statements.

2. Challenge in this appeal, by the defendant in the suit, is against an order of remand passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Thalassery in A.S.No.82 of 2008. The plaintiff in O.S.No.91 of 2008 before the Munsiff, Kuthuparamba preferred that appeal. 1st respondent herein, purported to be on behalf of his alleged mentally infirm sister Rohini, filed a suit for declaration that a registered document executed by Rohini is null and void and also for a consequential relief of prohibitory injunction. Clear allegations are made in the plaint that Rohini was mentally and legally an infirm person and the document did not bind her. By invoking the provisions in Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “the Code”) the court below conducted an enquiry in respect of Rohini's mental condition. She was found to be in good state of mind and she was not mentally infirm at the time of presentation of the plaint. It was also found that Rohini did not require a next friend to institute a suit on her behalf. On finding that the next friend had no locus standi to present the plaint on behalf of Rohini, the court below rejected the plaint. Against the order of rejection, the 1st respondent herein, as the next friend of Rohini, preferred the appeal before the District Court.

3. Denouement is the death of Rohini pending the appeal. It is noteworthy that the appellate court did not conduct any enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code, despite there was a finding by the trial court that the ostensible plaintiff Rohini was of sound mind. Lower appellate court found that rejection of the plaint was legally improper. However, it felt that an opportunity should be given to the legal heirs of deceased Rohini to proceed with the suit by intervening in the proceedings. For the said purpose, the order of rejection was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court. That judgment is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and contesting respondent.

5. The substantial questions of law arising for determination are:

(i). When a suit is instituted by a next friend and on enquiry the court finds that the plaintiff is not suffering from any mental illness or disability and the next friend is found to be without any locus standi, can an appeal be maintained by the very same next friend on behalf of the plaintiff and that too without any enquiry in the appeal under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code?

(ii). Should the trial court have granted an opportunity to the original plaintiff to elect whether she was intending to proceed with the suit?

(iii). When the person described as the plaintiff died pending the appeal preferred by the putative next friend, could the appeal be continued by legal representatives?

(iv). Can by way of a remand order, an action, barred by law of limitation, be resurrected, when no independent suit was instituted by the legal heirs of deceased Rohini challenging the sale deed within the period of limitation?

6. Lower appellate court found that rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff was not a mentally infirm person cannot be sustained because none of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code justify the rejection. For clarity, Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code is reproduced hereunder:

“11. Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required