CRP/1144/2025 of DESU SATYANARAYANA Vs NARRA PAPULAMMA on 6 April 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.962 of 2024 in O.S.No.47 of 2015 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Addanki.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.47 of 2015.

3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit vide O.S.No.47 of 2015 for declaration of their right over Plot-A1, mandatory injunction and mesne profits from defendant no.1. In the said suit the respondent no.1/defendant no.1, represented by her son filed petition vide I.A.No.962 of 2024 under Order- XXXII, Rule-15 of Code of Civil Procedure to appoint son of the defendant no.1 as guardian for adducing evidence. The petitioners resisted the claim made in the petition by filing counter. The learned trial Judge, upon hearing the counsel for the parties and upon considering the material available on record, allowed the petition. The said order has been challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel for respondent no.1. The respondent nos.2 to 4 despite served with notice neither appeared nor put up their appearance through counsel.

RC,J

5. Sri Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti, learned counsel for petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial Court and grounds of Civil Revision Petition would contend that defendant no.1 filed petition vide I.A.No.772 of 2024 on 30.08.2024 to receive documents and the said petition came up on 28.10.2024 and her counsel submitted arguments on her instructions, suggesting that she was hale and healthy by then and capable of prosecuting her case, however, the trial Court failed to consider these aspects while dealing with the subject petition. He would further contend that defendant no.1 in the suit filed by her against Government vide O.S.No.310 of 2007 for permanent injunction, filed her chief examination affidavit dated 17.10.2023 and faced cross-examination on 26.09.2024 and therefore, the petitioner was mentally fit as on 26.09.2024, however the learned trial Judge failed to consider the said aspect as well. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge simply based on the medical prescription/out patient record and having been swayed away by feigned answers given by defendant no.1, without conducting any mandatory preliminary judicial inquiry as required while dealing with petition under Order XXXII, Rule-15 CPC, erroneously allowed the petition ignoring the factum that defendant no.1 faced cross-examination just a few days prior to filing of the subject petition. He would further contend that the impugned order is unsustainable since the enquiry contemplated under Order 32, Rule-15 CPC was not complied with RC,J

and hence the same has to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision petition.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on M.S.Nadar @ Suybramaniya Nagar vs. S.Saraswathi1.

6. On the other hand, Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel for respondent no.1, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed before the trial Court would contend that the trial Court upon conducting judicial inequiry in conformity with the mandatory requirement under Rule 15 of Order-XXXII CPC, after satisfying itself that defendant no.1 has been suffering from mental infirmity i.e. partial loss of memory due to schizophrenia, rightly allowed the petition. He would further contend that the mental status of defendant no.1 in facing cross-examination by itself does not suggest the same status as on the date of filing of the petition and the Court must be satisfied that the person is incapable of protecting their interests at the time of the proceedings and accordingly, the trial Court after conducting judicial inquiry allowed the petition and the said order does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

1. 1997(II) CTC 132

RC,J

8. Order-XXXII, Rule-15 CPC reads thus: “15. Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) to apply to persons of unsound mind- Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) shall, so far as may be applied to persons adjudged, before or during the pendency of the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to persons who, though not so adjudged, are found by the Court on enquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, or protecting their interest when suing or being sued.”

9. When dealing with a petition under Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the CPC, the court must adopt a proactive, protective, and paternalistic approach to ensure the interests of a person with unsound mind or mental infirmity are safeguarded. A mandatory preliminary judicial inquiry is necessary, often involving personal examination of the individual and medical evidence, to ascertain if they are truly incapable of protecting their own interests. The court must record its satisfaction on the mental status before appointing a next friend or guardian, ensuring the enquiry is not merely a formality. Ordering a medical examination is a valid exercise of power to determine mental incapacity. Under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the CPC, courts must conduct a strict enquiry to determine mental infirmity. Because judges are not medical experts, taking advice or medical evidence from doctors is vital for this, as established in. However, medical opinion is not binding; it is an expert opinion under section 45 of the Evidence Act for the court to form its own conclusion.

RC,J

10. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in M.S.Nadar @ Subramaniya Nadar (supra 1), the High Court Madras held thus: “In Rami Reddi v. Papi Reddi, AIR 1963 A.P 160 while dealing with the nature of enquiry to be conducted by the Court the learned single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows:- “Order 32, Rule 15, Civil P.C., applies not only to a person adjudged to be of unsound mind, as under the old Code, but also to a person of weak mind. Where in a suit filed by the plaintiff through his next friend an application is made by the next friend that the plaintiff is of unsound mind, or mentally infirm for the purpose of the rule, the extent of the infirmity has to be found by the court on inquiry. This enquiry should consist of the examination of the alleged lunatic by the Judge, either in open court or chambers, and as court are generally presided over by lay- men, as a matter of precaution, the evidence of medical expert should be taken. Where the precaution of such a judicial enquiry is not observed, the person cannot be declared lunatic, and a guardian cannot be appointed for him.”

11. No doubt, the trial judge examined defendant no.1 by putting some preliminary questions ultimately came to the conclusion that defendant no.1 is unable to recollect answers since she could not recollect the names of her son and daughter and therefore her state of mind is not so stable to give evidence. What all produced before the trial Court in support of the contention that defendant no.1 is suffering from mental infirmity i.e. loss of memory due to schizophrenia is medical prescription/out patient records. If that was so, the learned trial Judge ought to have called for a report or taken the evidence of medical expert, before reaching the conclusion regarding mental infirmity of defendant no.1.

RC,J

12. Therefore, the judicial enquiry conducted by learned trial Judge cannot be said to be in compliance of Order XXXII, Rule-15 CPC and hence the same is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back for fresh consideration.

13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.962 of 2024 in O.S.No.47 of 2015. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court. The I.A.No.962 of 2024 shall stand restored and the learned trial Judge shall consider the matter afresh in due compliance of Order-XXXII, Rule-15 CPC and the observations made in M.S.Nadar @ Subramaniya Nadar. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 7TH April, 2026.

RR