The necessity of due consideration of disability documentation in legal representation cases is emphasized.

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.04.2025 in an Unnumbered Suit of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, whereby a request to proceed with the suit through a next friend was rejected. In Annexure A6 order, the trial court has stated that the petitioner had given rational answers to the questions put by the court and hence, does not require to be represented by a next friend. The plaint was hence returned for correction and re-presentation.

2. The petitioner has produced Annexure A1, a certificate issued by the National Trust, whereby a legal guardian had been appointed. Annexure A2 is the disability certificate issued by the General Hospital, Trivandrum stating that the petitioner has intellectual disability and the diagnosis is mild mental retardation. It is stated that she has

50% disability in relation to her brain. Annexure A6 order does not make any reference to these documents, which are stated to have been produced before the court below. In view of Annexure A1 and Annexure A2, it is not safe for the court to decide the issue by merely putting questions to the person with a disability and deciding on the basis of the answers that are given. If the court had doubts about the certificates issued, it would have been more appropriate to refer the petitioner to a medical board for a report.

In the above circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Annexure A6 order is set aside. The Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to reconsider the issue and pass orders, after making necessary enquiries as suggested above.

Sd/-