When a party's mental capacity to litigate is challenged, the court must facilitate medical evaluation if prima facie evidence of disability exists, ensuring the right to defend one's case is not defeated by procedural technicalities.

ORDER

Aggrieved over the order passed by the trial Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.1827 of 2015, the plaintiff has preferred this Revision.

2. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed in the Revision, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

3. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner/plaintiff who is represented by her sister filed an application stating that the plaintiff viz., R.K.K.Shanthakumari is suffered with mental illness and to prove the same, she has to appear before Mental Health Review Board constituted by State Mental Health Authority of Tamil Nadu in order to find out her mental illness as well as her capacity to recognize ordinary demands of her life. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge holding that the mental illness under Section 2(s) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is beyond the scope of Order XXXII Rule 15 of C.P.C. Aggrieved over the same, the present Revision has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit itself filed by the plaintiff R.K.K.Shanthakumari represented by her sister viz., R.K.K.Veenakumari, for the relief of declaration of Power of Attorney which was obtained by the first defendant is non-est and also for a consequential relief of declaration of the Sale Deed executed by the first defendant on 30.09.2013 on the strength of the alleged power of attorney. However the plaintiff is not a stable women and her mental condition also is not stable to realise the facts and as such, she is mentally incapable. Since her birth, she is under the control of her mother, and now under the control of her sister and even from her childhood onwards, she has been taking treatment for mental illness. Taking advantage of her such mental illness, the documents were manipulated and therefore the suit has been filed before the Trial Court.

5. Before commencement of the trial, in order to prove the mental capacity of the plaintiff, her sister has filed an application to subject the plaintiff before the Mental Health Review Board to find out her mental capacity which is necessary to adjudicate the issue in the suit.

6. Before the trial Court, the contesting defendants disputing the mental illness of the plaintiff and contended that she is a normal person. Considering the submission, the trial Court has also dismissed the application by comparing the definition for ‘Mental Retardation’ as defined under Section 2(g) of the Mental Healthcare Act, and accordingly it does not fall under the ambit of Section 105 of the Act.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. On a bare perusal of the plaint averments reflects that the original plaintiff R.K.K.Shanthakumari who is represented by her guardian / sister R.K.K.Veenakumari is a mentally incapable person and the suit was filed in the year 2015. The defendants also contested the case stating that she is a normal person. But the duty is cast upon the plaintiff to prove that she is a mentally incapable person. Further more the Medial Report produced on the side of the plaintiff reflects that she is not an ordinary person and suffered with mental disability. To that effect, an assessment has also been made by the Doctors which reflects that her mental age is seven years though she is now aged about 54 years. Prima facie it shows that she is not an ordinary women and she is suffered with mental illness.

9. In view of the above, the Medical Report of the Mental Health Review Board is necessary. However the Trial Court failed to consider the same, more so the suit is pending from 2015 on the same ground. If