Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Bhogi Someswara Rao vs Koki Deepa And Ors. on 8 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(4)ALD669, AIR 2006 (NOC) 832 (ANDH. PRA.)
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The respondents 1 to 4 filed O.S. No. 5 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, against the petitioner and his father, the 5th respondent, claiming damages against them. The 1st respondent is said to have been proposed for marriage with the petitioner herein. But the marriage did not materialise. Petitioner and his father, the 5th respondent, filed O.S. No. 8 of 2001 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, claiming damages against respondents 1 to 4, on account of breakdown of the marriage. The petitioner is also said to have filed a complaint in C.C.No. 238 of 2001 against the respondents 1 to 4, and it is said to have resulted in acquittal. O.S. No. 5 of 2003 is filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein, claiming damages, on account of malicious prosecution.
2. On behalf of the petitioner herein, his mother filed an application under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC with a prayer to permit her to act as guardian. She pleaded that the petitioner is of unsound mind and, in fact, respondents 1 to 4 have accused him of peculiar character and unstable nature. The application was resisted by respondents 1 to 4. Through its order dated 26-8-2003, the trial Court dismissed the application. Hence, this revision.
3. Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narusu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondents themselves accused and branded the petitioner herein, of being peculiar character and unstable nature and, in fact, he is undergoing treatment with a Psychiatrist. He contends that the trial Court dismissed the application by drawing certain inferences, which run contrary to the record.
4. Sri A. Ravishankar, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the appointment of a guardian, for a party to a proceeding, is not a matter of course, and unless the Court is satisfied, application filed under Order 32 Rule 3, cannot be ordered. He contends that except making a reference to some vague and general plea, raised in the written-statement, in a different suit, the petitioner did not file any material before the trial Court.
5. Order 32 permits a civil Court to appoint guardians for minors and persons of unsound mind, in suits filed by, or against them. Rule 3 deals with the procedure for appointment of guardian, to defend the proceedings. In the instant case, such application was filed by the mother of the 1st defendant in the suit, the petitioner herein. It was pleaded that the petitioner is of unsound mind, and that he is not in a position to take any decision by himself.
6. For the most part of it, appointment of a guardian for a party in a civil proceedings, is a matter, squarely between the Court and the concerned person. It is ultimately the satisfaction of the Court, that would be conclusive.
7. Apart from pleading that the petitioner herein is of unsound mind, his mother placed before the trial Court, the certified copy of the written-statement filed by the 5th respondent herein in O.S. No. 8 of 2001. As mentioned earlier, that suit was filed by the petitioner and the 5th respondent, against respondents 1 to 4 herein, claiming damages, on account of breakdown of marriage. To justify their action, resulting in breakdown of marriage, the respondents pleaded that the petitioner is of "peculiar character and unstable nature". Such a statement having come from the respondents themselves, they should not have resisted the present application, at all. In addition to the certified copy of the said written statement, the mother of the petitioner has also filed certain documents, to prove that the petitioner was undergoing treatment with a Psychiatrist.
8. A perusal of the order under revision discloses that the trial Court did not think it fit, to personally examine the petitioner. Having referred to certain judgments, which, in fact mandate that the Court must conduct enquiry into the alleged mental infirmity of a person, it proceeded to declare that it is not necessary to appoint a guardian for the petitioner. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on facts or in law. The only factor that weighed with the trial Court was, the opposition and resistance offered by the respondents, and it lost sight of the fact that it was the respondents themselves, who branded the petitioner as a person of unsound mind and peculiar character. The trial Court ought not to have ignored the fact that the petitioner is undergoing treatment with a Psychiatrist. At any rate, no prejudice can be said to have been suffered by the respondents, in case the petitioner is kept under the guardianship of his mother.
9. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed, the order under revision is set aside, and consequently, I.A. No. 238 of 2003 shall stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.