COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the Common Order dated 12.12.2022 in I.A.Nos.287 & 739 of 2022 and 776 of 2021 in O.S.No.192 of 2013, passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs/S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

2. I.A.No.739 of 2022 in O.S.No.192 of 2013 was filed by the son of the Sama Ramulamma/respondent No.1 herein requesting the Court to appoint him as her next friend/guardian. He stated that respondent No.1/plaintiff is his mother. She filed the said suit for partition and separate possession. She is physically handicapped and unable to walk. However, the matter is coming up for Cross-examination of P.W.1. She is suffering from Dementia, mentally invalid, loss of memory, unable to speak properly. She cannot understand the questions put to her and answer them properly, as such she cannot proceed to give evidence. He had filed a copy of the certificate issued by the Doctor and also the certificate issued by the Medical Board regarding the disability and further stated that respondent No.1/plaintiff will be put irreparable loss and damage if he is not permitted to give evidence on her behalf to protect the interest of his mother. Therefore, requested this Court to permit him to represent the plaintiff, as her next friend/guardian by filing an application under Order 32 rule 2 & 15 R/w.151 of C.P.C.

3. In the Counter filed by respondent No.3/defendant No.2 in I.A.No.739 of 2021, he stated that petitioner is neither tenable under law nor on facts and it is liable to be dismissed and there is no locus-standi to file an application to permit him to appoint him as a guardian as he was stranger to the suit schedule property and not a party to the proceedings and also disbelieved the medical certificates filed by the petitioner. He further contended that petitioner filed this application to avoid recording of the evidence of the plaintiff intentionally. He also stated that petitioner previously filed an application under incorrect provision of law, in which he filed a detailed counter affidavit, but the petitioner withdrawn the same as not pressed. Even the provisions mentioned in this petition are no way applicable to the facts of the case, as such he cannot be appointed as a guardian of the respondent No.1/plaintiff and not entitled to seek any relief. Therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

4. The trial Court considering the arguments of the respondents that petitioner is the third party to the proceedings and no way concerned with the suit scheduled property, dismissed the application. It was also observed that the said application was filed straight away by the petitioner seeking permission from the original plaintiff.

5. Perusal of the record shows that O.S.No.192 of 2013 was filed by Sama Ramulamma/plaintiff, who was aged about 75 years, for partition of the suit schedule property among the plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to 5, who are brothers and sisters. Defendant No.6 is the daughter of defendant No.5, defendants No.7 and 8 are the son and daughter of defendant No.1 and defendants No.9 to 11 are third parties to the family of plaintiff. Petitioner herein had filed a copy of the certificate given by the concerned Neurologist dated 15.09.2021, in which it was stated that respondent No.1/plaintiff was aged about 82 years and she was diagnosed as Dementia. He had also filed a copy of the certificate dated 14.06.2010, issued by the Medical Board regarding her disability, in which the disability was shown as

90%. However, the said certificate regarding disability was issued prior to the filing of the suit and it is not a hindrance for her to be cross-examined by way of appointing the Adovcate Commissioner at house, but the main contention is that she is suffering from Dementia. As on the date of filing the suit itself, she was aged about 75 years and now she is aged about 82 years. It is