ORDER :

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 18.8.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Indora, District Kangra, HP, whereby an application under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, having been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (herein after referred to as “the plaintiff”), praying therein for appointment of natural guardian for defendant No.1, came to be dismissed, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside the order passed by the court below and constitute medial board to examine the mental health of defendant No.1, who is 88 years old.

2. Pursuant to notice issued in terms of order dated 5.10.2021, Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by the court below, while passing the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned in the instant proceedings and as such, no interference is called for.

4. Precisely, in the case at hand, plaintiff, who happens to be son of defendant No.1, filed an application Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, praying therein for appointment of natural guardian on behalf of defendant No.1, who is 88 years old on the ground that he is not in fit state of mind and as such, is being exploited by the other defendants, who also happen to be son and grandsons of defendant No.1.

5. Perusal of impugned order reveals that court with a view to ascertain correctness of the allegation made in the application summoned defendant No.1 to the court and asked few questions. Having interacted with defendant No.1, court found him to be in fit state of mind. Court observed that though defendant No. 1, being old aged person may be suffering from various ailments, but he understands each and everything and as such, it cannot be said that he being of unsound mind is not able to protect his interest in the ongoing proceedings.

6. Though Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to ascertain factum with regard to mental illness, if any of defendant No.1, medical board can be constituted, but Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned senior counsel representing the respondents opposes the aforesaid prayer on the ground that once court below after having interacted with defendant No.1 has recorded its satisfaction with regard to mental state of mind of defendant No.1, there is no occasion, if any, to accede to the aforesaid request made by the plaintiff.

7. Having carefully perused provision contained under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, this Court is of the view that it is the satisfaction of the court, which is of utmost importance, while acceding prayer, if any, made for appointment of natural guardian. Aforesaid provision/rule suggests that if court, during proceedings of the case, comes to conclusion or finds a person to be of unsound mind, it after having made inquiry, can proceed to appoint natural guardian. In the instant case, learned trial court, applying aforesaid procedure laid down in Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, asked few questions to defendant No.1 and found defendant No.1 to be in fit state of mind. Leaving everything aside, no material worth credence has been led on record suggestive of the fact that mental state of defendant No. 1 is not good and he is being exploited by the other defendants.

8. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the court below and as such, same is upheld. As a consequence of which, present petition fails and dismissed being devoid of any merit.