Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SANIL JOSE
For the Respondents: SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO, SMT.ANJALY N.S.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points extracted with corresponding references:

Case Details and Parties * The case is Jibby Joseph (Appellant) versus Antony Kuruvilla (Respondent), decided by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 31-07-2025 [judgement_subject]. * The original petition (O.P.(C) No. 3110 of 2018) challenges orders regarding the appointment of a next friend in O.S.No.51/2014 [1]. * O.S.No.51/2014 seeks to declare a judgment and decree from O.S.No.447/2005 (filed by the petitioner) as null and void and requests restitution of property [2]. * The petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.51/2014 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.447/2005 [2]. * The 1st respondent in O.S.No.51/2014 (Sri. Antony Kuruvilla) was the sole defendant in the earlier suit [2]. * The suit O.S.No.447/2005 was decreed based on a compromise where the respondent agreed to pay Rs. 1,35,000/- [2]. * The property was delivered to the petitioner on 29-10-2012, and the 4th respondent is the current purchaser [2].

Facts and Procedural History * The petitioner contended in O.S.No.51/2014 that the 1st respondent is mentally ill and lacks capacity to understand the ramifications of his actions [3]. * An application was filed to appoint the 2nd respondent as the next friend for the 1st respondent [3]. * The petitioner objected to this appointment, arguing the 1st respondent is sane and capable of prosecuting the suit [3]. * The Sub Judge examined the 1st respondent in court and conducted an enquiry under Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC [3]. * The Sub Judge initially allowed the application to appoint the 2nd respondent as next friend [3]. * This order was challenged before the High Court, which set it aside and directed a reconsideration or medical examination [6]. * A Medical Board examined the 1st respondent on 24-10-2017, noting memory disturbances, occasional irritability, and wrong responses regarding personal details and events [6] (!) . * The Medical Board suggested further observation and consultation with a Neurologist (!) (!) (!) . * The 1st respondent suffered a fall and was hospitalized for a fracture of the neck of the femur [7]. * A subsequent Medical Board examination on 06-02-2018 noted partial ankylosis of the hip and knee, difficulty walking, and limitation in performing activities of daily living [7] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . * Based on these reports and depositions, the Sub Judge passed an order appointing the 2nd respondent as the next friend [8]. * The petitioner challenged this order, arguing the evidence showed only physical infirmity, not mental infirmity [9]. * The 2nd respondent later went abroad for studies, leading to an application to replace him with the 3rd respondent (another son of the 1st respondent) as next friend [10]. * The Trial Court allowed the replacement under Order 32 Rule 9 read with Rule 15 CPC [10]. * The petitioner also challenged the replacement and sought to set aside the plaint in O.S.No.51/2014 under Order 23 Rule 3A of the CPC [10].

Legal Issues and Statutory Provisions * The core legal question is whether the appointment of the next friend was contrary to Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) [13]. * Order 32 Rule 15 states that Rules 1 to 14 (except Rule 2-A) apply to persons adjudged of unsound mind or those found by the court on enquiry to be incapable of protecting their interests by reason of any mental infirmity (!) (!) . * The court must conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain if a person is capable of protecting their interests without a next friend [14].

Court's Reasoning and Interpretation * The High Court held that the term "mental infirmity" is broader than "unsoundness of mind" and was intentionally inserted to cover a wider range of conditions [15]. * Every word in the statute must be given due meaning; "mental infirmity" conveys a meaning wider than "unsoundness of mind" [15]. * "Mental infirmity" includes cognitive impairments affecting perception, discernment, comprehension, and thought [17]. * Even physical or sensory impairments (like being deaf and dumb) that hinder communication and comprehension can constitute "mental infirmity" under this rule [17]. * Precedents like Nanak Chand and Ors. support that persons who cannot communicate effectively due to infirmity fall within the protection of Order 32 Rule 15 [18]. * Recent decisions, including Vinesh . Raji Radhakrishnan, affirm that Order 32 Rule 15 applies to persons incapable of protecting their interests due to mental or other infirmity (!) (!) . * The court emphasized the duty to ensure litigants are sufficiently protected and must conduct necessary inquiries to affirm this capability (!) (!) . * In this specific case, the 1st respondent's memory disorder, cognitive impact, and inability to give rational answers established his incapacity to protect his interests [14] (!) . * The appointment of the next friend was necessary to protect the 1st respondent's interests (!) .

Outcome * The High Court found no error of law or jurisdiction in the Trial Court's orders appointing the next friend (!) . * The replacement of the next friend due to the 2nd respondent's absence from India was also upheld as correct (!) . * The prayer to set aside the plaint under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC was dismissed as beyond the scope of the current petition, though open to be raised before the Trial Court (!) . * The original petition (O.P.(C) No. 3110 of 2018) was dismissed (!) . * The Trial Court was directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously (!) .