The necessity of medical evidence and the consultative process for appointing a next friend and natural guardian, and the court's authority to order the stay of e-auction proceedings until a decision is made by the statutory authorities or the Civil Court concerned.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The petitioners are the principal borrowers from co-respondents No.1 and 2. However, co-respondent No.3 has liquidated the entire mortgaged money(ies) to co-respondents No.1 and 2, and, the factum (supra), is undisputed.

2. Though under an agreement, as became executed inter-se the petitioners, and, co-respondents No.1 and 2, the liability to liquidate the borrowed sums of money became encumbered, upon, the co-petitioners No.1 to 4. However, as above stated, the liquidation(s) of the borrowings, as made by the co-petitioners from co-respondents No.1 and 2, rather has occurred at the instance of co-respondent No.3.

3. Be as it may, in sequel of the borrowings, as made by the petitioners from co-respondents No.1 and 2 rather becoming liquidated by co-respondent No.3, would not yet ipso facto result, in redemption of the mortgaged property, which is however jointly owned by the petitioners. The reason for drawing the above inference becomes sparked from the factum, that the co-respondent No.3 rears an apprehension, that despite under the apposite agreement, though liquidations of the borrowings as made by all the co-petitioners from co-respondents No.1 and, 2, thus were made by co-respondent No.3, but yet in the wake of co-petitioner No.4 being purportedly not in the befitting cognitive state of mind, thereby his share in the joint mortgaged property rather would not become transferred to him, in the registered deed of conveyance.

Be that as it may, it is only in the event of liquidations being made of the mortgage money(ies) by co-respondent No.3, that the instant writ petition has been filed for staying the e-auction proceedings.

4. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the lending institution (respondents No.1 and 2) submits, that since the entire mortgaged money(ies), stand redeemed to the financial institution concerned, therefore, he has been imparted instructions to withdraw the e-auction notice, and, also submits that he has also been imparted instructions to issue the requisite NOC to the petitioners. Therefore, but obviously there would be redemption of the mortgaged property and, resultantly it would be free from all encumbrances.

5. However, a dispute has emerged amongst the petitioners, and, correspondent No.3, who has liquidated the borrowings, as made by the petitioners from co-respondents No.1 and 2, thus to the latter. The said dispute as stated (supra), is founded upon the premise, that there was some agreement inter-se the petitioners, and, co-respondent No.3, whereby the latter was permitted to liquidate the borrowings, as made by the petitioners to the lending institution, but subject to all the joint co-owners executing a deed for transferring the mortgaged property in favour of co-respondent No.3.

6. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the co-petitioners No.1 to 3 submits, that he has been imparted instructions by the petitioners to make a statement before this Court, that they are ready and willing to, in respect of their shares in the mortgaged property, thus execute a registered deed of conveyance in favour of co-respondent No.3.

7. However, since the transfer of mortgaged property would fully take place only when the fourth co-owner in the mortgaged property, namely Jivtesh Singh Maini, also is a co-participant alongwith the co-petitioners, in the deed of conveyance, thus to be executed in respect of the property concerned, with correspondent No.3. It is averred in the application bearing No.CM-10359-CWP-2023, that the fourth co-owner in the joint mortgaged property be permitted to be impleaded through his next friend, and, natural guardian, hence in the instant petition. The said impleadment is rested on the factum that thereby in case this Court proceeds to appoint the person concerned, as the next friend, and, natural guardian of the disabled fourth co-owner in the joint mortgaged property concerned, thereupon he would become enabled to execute a registered deed of conveyan