HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4315 of 2008 Between: Latchubhukata Padalu. ..... PETITIONER AND Latchubhukata Satteamma. .....RESPONDENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4315 of 2008 ORDER: The order under revision is the order in I.A.No. 263 of 2006 in O.S.No. 74 of 2006 dated 31.07.2008 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Palakonda. The respondent herein, i.e. the petitioner in the I.A. is the wife of the defendant in the Suit. She filed an application, under Order 32 Rule 4 C.P.C., requesting the Court below to appoint her as the guardian of the defendant. It is her specific case that her husband was suffering from schizophrenia, a mental disorder; his continuous illness rendered him incapable of defending the suit; and she be appointed as his guardian to contest the Suit on his behalf. The Court below relied on a judgment of this Court in “Khaja Majeeduliah v. Smt Jammelunnisa[1]”, wherein it was held that the Court, while appointing a guardian, should be satisfied that the defendant is of unsound mind; the guardian was a fit and proper person; and had no interest adverse to the defendant. The Court below held that the question whether the defendant, who had executed the suit promissory note, was of sound mind or not was a matter to be decided after a full-fledged trial; as per the evidence of PW.1 and CW.1 and Exs.P.1 and X.1, the defendant was suffering from a mental disorder; no doctor had stated that the defendant was at present of sound mind and capable of making transactions; and appointment of the defendant’s wife as his guardian would not prejudice the case of the plaintiff. Sri K.Bathi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that during lucid intervals of sanity the defendant had executed the promissory note; since the defendant had executed the promissory note in the year 2006 it was evident that he was of sound mind; and there was no justification in the Court below appointing a guardian on his behalf. It is not disputed before this Court that the defendant in the Suit suffered from schizophrenia, a mental disorder. As rightly pointed out by the Court below, whether the defendant was of sound mind or not when the promissory note was executed, is a question to be examined during the course of the trial. The Court below observed that none of the doctors had stated that the defendant was, at present, of sound mind, and considering the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-plaintiff, directed the defendant’s wife to be appointed as his guardian. Exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below in appointing the defendant’s wife as his guardian does not suffer from any patent illegality nor has it resulted in manifest injustice being caused to the petitioner herein. I see no reason, therefore, to exercise discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order under revision. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:22.02.2010 usd [1] 2002(1) APLJ 21