IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH (20TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2597 of 2011 Between: Smt. Katta Naga Siromani … Petitioner And: Katta Brahmavardhana Rao … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2597 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 16.06.2011 in IA No.453 of 2011 in ATC No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, wherein the said application filed by the first petitioner herein under Order 32 Rules 3 and 15, read with Section 151 CPC, seeking appointment of one Umadevi, as guardian on her behalf to conduct ATC proceedings, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed ATC No.1 of 2011 against the first petitioner Katta Nagasiromani, under Section 16 of the A.P. (AA) Tenancy Act, for declaration that she is the cultivating tenant in respect of the schedule land and also for permanent injunction. The respondent in the ATC filed IA No.453 of 2011 under Order 32 Rules 3 and 15 CPC seeking permission to be represented by a guardian Umadevi on the ground that she is deaf and dumb. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, she stated that the respondent, being her only son is aware of the fact that she is deaf and dumb and unable to communicate except by way of signs. The proposed guardian Umadevi is none else than the daughter of first petitioner herein (respondent in ATC) and therefore, brother of the petitioner in the ATC and she also filed affidavit stating no objection to act as guardian on behalf of her mother. The respondent filed counter, opposing the application and contending that the petitioner and her daughter filed suit OS No.253 of 2008 in the court of the 7th Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and another suit OS No.81 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri against the respondent and in both the suits, no such application was filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of guardian. The respondent further contended that the proposed guardian, who is none-else than the daughter of the petitioner, is having interest in the litigation and therefore, she cannot be permitted to act as a guardian. 4. The main ground on which, the petitioner herein sought permission to be represented by a guardian is that she is deaf and dumb. It is not her case that she is mentally challenged. In fact, application in IA No.453 of 2011 under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC is filed by the petitioner herself and in support thereof, the petitioner has filed her own affidavit. Rule 15 of Order 32 CPC states that Rules 1 to 14 shall so far as may be applied to the persons adjudged to be of unsound mind and also to those persons, who though not so adjudged, are found by the court on enquiry to be incapable, by reason of mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued. Admittedly, the petitioner is not adjudged to be of unsound mind. Infact, it is not her plea that she is of unsound mind. In the case of persons, who are not so adjudged, a guardian can be appointed under Order 32 CPC when he or she is found to be incapable by reason of any mental infirmity of protecting their interest and such finding has to be recorded by the court on enquiry. It is only when such an enquiry is conducted and the court records a finding that the person seeking appointment of guardian is incapable of protecting his or her interest by reason of mental infirmity, the question of appointing a guardian for such person arises. 5. In the present case, it is not the plea of the petitioner that she is suffering from any such mental infirmity because of which she is incapable of protecting her interest. Her only grievous is that being deaf and dumb, she can communicate only by way of signs and the Court may not be able to understand her gestures while recording the evidence. Admittedly, ATC has not reached the stage of enquiry. As rightly observed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, if at the time of enquiry in the ATC, the petitioner herein is unable to give her oral testimony and is unable to make gestures to explain her version, she can examine any other person on her behalf. But on the ground that she is unable to communicate or explain by way of gestures, no guardian can be appointed. Section 119 of the Evidence Act enables a witness, who is unable to speak to give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible as by writing or by signs. Further when the petitioner filed statement on her own without being represented by a guardian, there is absolutely no justification for appointment of a guardian to conduct proceedings in the ATC on her behalf. The impugned order dismissing the application, does not therefore call for any interference by this Court. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 20.09.2011 bss