The Court may order a medical examination by a specialized board to determine the mental capacity of a party when such capacity is central to the validity of a settlement deed being executed.

O R D E R

% 03.08.2026

1. On 20.04.2026, we had passed the following order:-

“1. This appeal challenges the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the Court of the District Judge (Commercial Court- 01), East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Execution (Comm.) No. 85/2025.

2. The learned District Judge has directed the appellants herein to hand over the possession of the suit premises bearing House No. 122A, Pocket 1, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi- 110091 to the decree holder/respondent herein. It also observed in case the appellants failed to hand over the property, the Court would appoint a receiver to take possession of the property.

3. The appellants herein also include Mrs. Irene Promilla Peter as appellant no. 3. She is said to be the mother of the appellant no. 2, Mr. Vincent Rogger Peter. Mr. Peter has filed the affidavit in support of the appeal. However, the affidavit does not state that the affidavit is on behalf of appellant no. 3.

4. We note from paragraph ‘12’ of the appeal paper-book, that the appellant no. 3 has been suffering from delirium and is not in a fit state of mind since 2023. It is also stated the signatures purportedly obtained on the settlement deed of which execution is sought by the respondent is by deceit and concealment.

5. Whereas the, learned counsel for the respondent submits, on instructions, that appellant no. 3 is of sound mind, and was represented by appellant no. 2 before the Executing Court.

6. What is to be noted here is that neither the appeal has been signed by appellant no. 3 nor separate affidavit has been filed by appellant no. 3. Even Vakalatnama has not been filed by appellant no. 3 in these proceedings.

7. With regard to the facts noted above, this Court is of the view that the mental state of appellant no. 3 needs to be ascertained, in view of the contradictory stand taken by the appellant no. 2 and the respondent. This is for the reason, the execution of the settlement is sought to be enforced against the property of the appellant no. 3. In that sense, it needs to be ascertained whether she is mentally sound/fit-enough to understand the nature of proceedings initiated against her and the consequence of the same. In this respect, we deem it appropriate to call for a report from the BLK Max Hospital, where Mrs. Irene Peter is undergoing treatment, as is clear from the documents at pages 46 and 47 of the appeal paper-book. The report shall be submitted by the Head, Department of Neurology of BLK Max, by also consulting a Psychiatrist, if any, available in the said hospital.

8. The Director/Medical Supdt. shall send the report directly to the Registrar General of this Court, within a period of three weeks from today in a sealed cover.

9. On the receipt of the said report, the Registrar General shall place the same before this Court for consideration.

10. The Doctor Neurologist shall examine the appellant no. 3 on a date and time to be informed to the appellant no. 2 on the mobile no. 9354040431 at least two days before the date on which she has to be examined.

11. The Doctor Neurologist shall also give the opinion as to whether Mrs. Irene Peter is suffering from dementia, if so, since when.

12. It is made clear that the appellant no. 2 shall ensure that the appellant no. 3 is taken to the hospital on the date and time to be informed by the BLK Max for examination by the Neurologist/psychiatrist.

13. The necessary cost of the examination of the appellant no. 3 shall be borne by the appellant no. 2 to be paid to the hospital on the date of examination.

14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Medical Superintendent/Director of the BLK Max, Pusa Road, New Delhi for necessary compliance.

15. We also direct that the appellant no. 2 shall be present in the Court physically on the next date of hearing.

16. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants seeks the stay of the impugned order. On this, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the Execu