IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1707 of 2006 AWADHESH JHA, son of late Deoki Nandan Jha, resident of Village – Shahbajpur, P.S. Ahiyapur, District – Muzaffarpur….. Defendant 1st Party…. Petitioner Versus 1. GANESH JHA, son of Late Deoli Nandan Jha, resident of Village – Shahbajpur, P.S. Ahiyapur, District – Muzaffarpur……. ………….Plaintiff …. Opposite Party, 2. Sanjay Kumar, son of Late Balram Jha, resident of Village – Shahbajpur, P.S. Ahiyapur, District Muzaffarpur….. …………………..Defendant 1st Party ……. Opposite Party, 3. Anil Kumar Jha, son of Jata Shankar Jha, resident of Village – Chakganj (Zero Mile), P.S. Ahiyapur, District – Muzaffarpur, 4. Upendra Singh, Son of Shiv Sharan Singh, resident of Village – Majroha, P.S. Runni Saidpur, District – Sitamarhi, at present Chakganj Zeromile, P.S. Ahiyapur, District Muzaffarpur, 5. Mahendra Sahni, Son of Bhola Sahni, resident of Village – Rasulpur Wazid, P.O. Bhikhanpur, Sugar Factory, P.S. Ahiyapur, District Muzaffarpur, 6. Umesh Rai, son of Jai Karan Rai, resident of Village – Shahbajpur, P.S. Ahiyapur, District – Muzaffarpur, 7. Smt. Nirmala Devi, wife of Ram Ekbal Singh, resident of Village –Tarajiwar, P.S. Hathauri, District Muzaffarpur, 8. Baccha Prasad Singh, son of Shri Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of Village Sheohar, P.O. & P.S. Sheohar, District – Sheohar, 9. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, son of Jagannath Mishra, resident of Village – Wolipur, P.S. Runni Saidpur, District – Sitamarhi, 10. Md. Kamre Alam, son of Md. Munshi Sheikh, 11. Md. Ruste Alam, son of Md. Munshi Sheikh, 12. Md. Noor Alam, Son of Md. Munshi Sheikh, Sl. No. 10 to 12 are residents of Village – Bakhari Chandan, P.S. Ahiyapur, District – Muzaffarpur, 13. Nand Kishore Paswan, son of Sohan Paswan and 14. Nandu Paswan, son of Sohan Paswan, Sl. No. 13 and 14 are resident of Village Mithanpura, P.S. Ahiyapur, District Muzaffarpur….. Defendants 2nd Parties…..Opposite parties. ----------- - 2 - For the Petitioner:- Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha and Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocates. ----------- 2. 19.02.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the Defendant 1st Set – Petitioner is aggrieved by part of the order dated 18.07.2006 passed by the Sub Judge II, Muzaffarpur in Partition Suit No. 179/1998 whereby the petition dated 26.06.2006 filed by the Defendant No. 1 for appointment of Guardian-ad- litum for Defendant No. 2 in the partition suit for the reason that he is a mentally unsound or dull person, has been disposed of by the court below. It is contended that in the plaint itself it is mentioned that the Defendant No. 2 is of dull mind and the factum of mental sickness has not been denied by the Defendant No. 1 and, as such, it would have been in the interest of the Defendant no. 2 that he should be represented by his next friend or a guardian appointed for the purpose. The court below found that the Defendant No. 2 himself had filed a rejoinder refuting the allegation that he is a mentally handicapped or unsound person. On consideration of fact it has recorded the finding that there is nothing on the record - 3 - to prove that the Defendant No. 2 is a mentally challenged person and it has also found that the Plaintiff himself along with the Defendant No. 1 had made efforts to get a document executed by Defendant No. 2 to the effect that he is surrendering his share in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1, and the attempt aforesaid was thwarted by the Defendant No. 2 himself before the Sub Registrar, Muzaffarpur. Thus, the trial court came to the conclusion that aforesaid fact was ample proof of mental alertness of the Defendant No. 2, thus, had rejected the prayer of appointment of guardian thereof. I do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order dated 18.07.2006. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )