IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.R. No. 23 of 2011. Reserved on : 18.10.2011. Decided on: 24.10.2011. _____________________________________________________ Manoj Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- Darsu and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. For respondent No. 1. : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. None for respondent No. 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karsog, District Mandi, dated 06.12.2010, rendered in C.M.A. No. 93- VI/10 in Civil Suit No. 17 of 2010. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this revision petition are that respondent No. 1-plaintiff, namely, Darsu (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff” for convenience sake), had instituted a suit against the petitioner-defendant No. 1, namely, Manoj Kumar and one Shri Hans Raj (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants” for brevity sake). Plaintiff’s son, namely, Shri Het Ram moved an application under Order 32 Rules 1 & 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the plaintiff to pursue his case. According to the averments contained in the application, the plaintiff was suffering from 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - mental illness since 2nd September, 1999. He was normal at the time when the suit was instituted. However, he was not in fit mental condition to depose before the Court due to his mental illness. The wife of the plaintiff is an old lady. 3. The application was resisted by the defendants. According to them, the application was mis-conceived and has been filed to fill up the lacunae. It was also averred that the application was contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. allowed the application on 06.12.2010. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karsog, District Mandi has exercised his jurisdiction illegally and there is also material irregularity. According to him, the plaintiff was perfectly all right at the time of institution of the suit and the application has been filed to remove the lacunae. 5. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order dated 06.12.2010. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order dated 06.12.2010 carefully. 7. The application has been filed by the plaintiff’’s son seeking his appointment as next friend. Doctor Virender Mohan, Psychiatric was examined as a witness. He has deposed that the plaintiff was under his treatment since 2nd February, 1999. According to him, the plaintiff was mentally sick and often entertains false beliefs. He also deposed that though the plaintiff - 3 - cannot be fully cured, but there could be partial remission in his case. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., on the basis of the averments contained in the application and the testimony of doctor Virender Mohan, Psychiatric, has allowed the application. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor procedural irregularity in the order dated 06.12.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karsog. 8. It is evident from the statement of Dr. Virender Mohan that the plaintiff was his patient since 2nd February, 1999 and he was mentally sick. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to substantiate how his client is prejudiced by the impugned order dated 06.12.2010. Rather, it is the duty caste upon the Courts to ensure that the rights of an unsound mind person are protected like a minor. The procedure must advance the cause of justice instead of thwarting. Once the doctor has certified the plaintiff to be of unsound mind, there is no illegality in the order dated 06.12.2010, passed by the trial Court permitting plaintiff’s son as next friend. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge October 24, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - - 5 - `