Procedural safeguards under Order XXXII CPC must be followed for mentally ill litigants to protect their interests in legal proceedings.

COMMON ORDER

The Application in A.No.2352 of 2025 had been filed to appoint N.Vijayakumari, D/o Late C.Natarajan residing at No.30, Anandavelu Street, Perambur, Chennai – 600011 as the guardian of the plaintiff to safeguard him and his property.

2. The Application in A.No.2353 of 2025 had been filed to recall the order dated 28.11.2024 made in A.No.6038 of 2023 in C.S.No.452 of 2019 rejecting the plaint thereby set aside the order.

3.The Application in A.No.2354 of 2025 had been filed to reopen the A.No.6038 of 2023 in C.S.No.452 of 2019 for advancing the arguments thereby granting an opportunity to file the counter affidavit and receive the same and proceed in accordance with law.

4.Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Ms.N.Varsha learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior counsel appearing for Ms.Shubharanjani Ananth, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant had filed a Suit for a declaration that the SARFAESI proceedings initiated in respect of the land purchased by him, as not binding on the plaintiff, inter alia for a declaration to declare the compromise order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal also not binding and the sale certificate issued pursuant to the proceedings by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, as illegal, invalid, non est and not binding upon the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction. He would submit that the defendants had not filed any written statement and therefore the matter was listed under the caption of “undefended board” at which time, an application was filed by the third defendant under Order VII, Rule 11. The said application after initial listing was not listed thereafter before the Court and subsequently was listed on 13.11.2024, when the applicant had sought time to file counter. When the counsel contacted the applicant, it had come to his knowledge that the applicant had been affected with a mental disorder 'schizophrenia' and is unable to lead his life independently and as the applicant was unmarried, the applicant's sister had taken out an application on 27.11.2024, seeking herself to be appointed as Guardian of the plaintiff by invoking the provisions of Order XXXII CPC. When the application to reject the plaint came to be listed before this Court on 28.11.2024, the counsel for the applicant had brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the application had been taken out to appoint a Guardian for the plaintiff, but however, the learned Judge proceeded to reject the plaint by holding that inspite of sufficient time granted to the plaintiff, he had not even filed any counter.

6. He would submit that when an application had been filed to appoint a Guardian of the plaintiff who had been affected with 'schizophrenia', the Court ought to have first disposed of the said application before proceedings to hear the matter on merits. He would submit that the merits of Order VII Rule 11, would have to be only adjudicated after an application under Order XXXII CPC is disposed of by this Court. In support of his contention, he had relied upon various judgments. Referring to the judgment in the case ofMoothetuth Kanari vs. Hari Shenoy & Ors., reported in1917 AIR Madras 616, he would submit that when a mentally ill person is not represented by a Guardian ad litem, any order passed against him would be a nullity.

7.Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kasturibai & Ors., vs. Anguri Chaudhary reported in(2003) 3 SCC 225, he would submit that it would be proper only for the Court first to