1989 Supreme(MP) 653

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.C. LAHOTI, J.
Lalaram - Applicant
Vs.
Dharamprakash - Respondents
C.R. No. 162 of 1988 (G)
Decided On : 22-06-1989

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 32, R. 15 – one of the parties alleged to be insane – objection cannot be decided by a look at him – enquiry should be held.

        Short Note

       1. Lalaram, one of the parties to a civil suit pending before the Court below, was alleged to be insane by his nephews. This position was disputed by the plaintiff/non – petitioners. The trial Court by its order, overruled the objection preferred by the petitioners on the ground that it was belated and further because Lalaram did not appear to be an insane person by a look at him.

       Held : Without much hesitation, it can be held that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The provisions contained in Rules 1 to 14 (except Rule 2A) of order 32 C.P.C. are applicable to a person of sound mind, as provided by Rule 15. This rule for its applicability contemplates not only a person adjudged to be of unsound mind but also a person who, by reason of any mental infirmity, is incapable of protecting his interest, though not adjudged to be of unsound mind. Whenever a person is alleged to be mentally infirm, a judicial enquiry into the allegation has to be held ordinarily. In the present case, the petitioner produced a prescription slip issued by a Medical Officer of the Mental Hospital, Gwalior showing that the applicant was treated there – at. A newspaper was also produced to show that at one point of time insanity of Lalaram was publicly notified. The trial Court was of the opinion that the prescription slip bore an endorsement that it was not meant to be produced during any legal proceedings. As to the publication in newspaper, the Court observed that it was of a date falling about a year before the date of objection. However, the fact remains that there was material before the Court suggesting prima facie that the allegation as to the mental infirmity of Lalaram demanded at least an enquiry contemplated by rule 15 of order 32. Findings cannot be recorded by a mere look by the Judge when the enquiry contemplated is between adversaries and that too in judicial proceedings.

       2. The impugned order is set aside. The Court below is directed to hold an enquiry contemplated by order 32, rule 15 of the C.P.C. into the objection preferred. Revision allowed.