Mayank Vadodaria And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 25 August, 2021
In the case of Mrs. Gulshan Rohington Irani (supra), the
legal position was culled out in paragraph no.39 as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.36 seconds)Smt. Veena Wd/O Dilip Gorey vs Ashok S/O Daulatrao Goray And Another on 1 July, 2019
8. Shri R.N.Ghuge, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported
the impugned order. He submitted that no prejudice was caused to the
petitioner considering the nature of order passed by the trial Court. The
respondent no.1 had not been appointed as the next friend of the petitioner
but had been directed to act as the person willing to be the next friend of the
petitioner. Moreover such appointment was only till completion of the
enquiry as to the unsoundness of the plaintiff no.1/petitioner herein. He
referred to the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code and submitted
that since the suit was filed with the aid of the next friend and said next friend
had expired, it was all the more necessary to permit the respondent no.1 to
represent the interest of the petitioner. According to him, enquiry directed to
be held by the trial Court could be done expeditiously by continuing the
appointment of the respondent no.1 as the person willing to be the next
friend. He placed reliance on the decisions in Raj Kumar Vs. Rameshchand
and others, (1999) 8 SCC 29, Somnath Vs. Tipanna Ramchandra Jannu
AIR 1973 Bombay 276 and Gulshan Rohington Irani Vs. Rayomand
Rohinton Irani and others, 2018(4) BCR 69 in support of his submissions.
1