IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2451 of 2010 Between: K. Pattabi .. Petitioner AND K. Ramesh .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2451 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated 11.03.2010, in I.A.No.836 of 2009 in O.S.No.223 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, whereunder and whereby, the petition, under Order XXXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’), filed by the petitioner/defendant to appoint B. Govindaiah as guardian to defend the original defendant K. Pattabhi, was dismissed. 2. I.A.No.836 of 2009 in O.S.No.223 of 2008 was filed to appoint B. Govindaiah as guardian to defend the original defendant K. Pattabhi in the suit, who said to be mentally retarded person. The trial Court has given reasons basing on the material available on record that there are cogent reasons for not appointing B. Govindaiah, who is the maternal uncle of the defendant, to defend the defendant. 3. The defendant received Court summons, engaged Advocate and filed his written statement and counter in injunction petition and he is regularly attending the Court and defending the suit. 4. Order XXXII Rule 15 C.P.C. reads as follows: “Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) shall, so far as may be, apply 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 one enquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued.” Admittedly, Order XXXII Rule 3 (4) CPC, a procedure is contemplated for appointment of guardian for the suit. This procedure is not followed when a person is mentally retarded and if the parents of that person are alive, then the natural guardian viz., the mother or father should be appointed as a guardian. In the present case, the parents of the petitioner/defendant are alive. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that the parents of the petitioner/defendant are illiterates. When the parents are alive, the petitioner is so advised that one of the parents may file an application for appointing a guardian on proof that the petitioner/defendant was unable to defend the suit on the ground of mental illness or unsoundness of mind. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner/defendant to file an application by his father or mother. If the parents are not alive, the case of the maternal uncle to be appointed as a guardian has to be considered by the trial Court. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J Date: 10th March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2451 of 2010 Date: 10th March, 2011 KL