SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16182

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
Rathinam Nadar (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Idumbaiya – Respondent
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1137 of 2025|C.M.P(MD) No.6122 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Karthick
For the Respondents:

The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of a petition under Order 7 Rule 11, emphasizing the plaintiff's mental competency.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. challenging the dismissal of an application under Order 7 Rule 11, regarding a suit for partition filed by the respondent, claiming mental incapacity. The court, referencing medical evidence, verifies the plaintiff's ability to manage his affairs and denies the petitioner's request for dismissal. Issues include the plaintiff’s mental competency and the applicability of Civil Procedure Code provisions, leading to the court's conclusion to uphold the lower court's decision. The Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of with no costs.

Table of Content
1. challenge to dismissal of application. (Para 1)
2. plaintiff's mental competency assessed. (Para 2)
3. court's authority on appointing guardians. (Para 3)
4. decision to dispose without costs. (Para 4)

O R D E R

The defendants in O.S.No.177 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul, have filed the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.

2. A perusal of the records reveal that the respondent herein has filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession. The only ground on which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. , has been filed is that the plaintiff is not able to take care of himself and he is a mentally challenged person. Before the trial Court, one of the Doctors who have given treatment to the plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1 and his medical Report has been marked as Ex.P.1. A perusal of the evidence of the Doctor reveals that the plaintiff is affected with Schizophrenia and it is only a disorder and not a disease. There is a possibility of lapse in these kind of diseases. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff is able to take care of himself and has filed the present suit.

3. In view of the evidence of the doctor, who had treated the plaintiff, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order of the trial Court, wherein the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. , stands dismissed. At at the time of examination of the plaintiff, if the Court finds that the plaintiff is not in a position to understand the consequences of the case, the Court is always at liberty to appoint a Court guardian to prosecute the suit.

4. With the above said observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top