HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1977 OF 2011 DATE:01-07-2011 BETWEEN Ronda Poli Reddy …Petitioner AND Ronda Priyatham and another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1977 OF 2011 ORDER: First respondent-minor instituted O.P.No.17 of 2010 represented by him mother against the petitioner herein and second respondent seeking maintenance alleging that he was given in adoption to second respondent herein. The petitioner herein is the father of second respondent. Pending the said O.P., petitioner herein filed I.A.No.722 of 2010 seeking to appoint him as guardian and next friend of second respondent to contest the proceedings contending that the second respondent could not defend the proceedings himself as he is suffering from Schizophrenia. By the impugned order the lower Court dismissed the I.A. only on the ground that the second respondent herein is not a minor as he is described in the O.P. as 40 years old and that unless the District Judge under the provisions of Sections 52 and 54 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 adjudged him as unsoundmind and incapable of taking care of himself and his property, the petition cannot be entertained. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed. Order XXXII Rule 15 C.P.C. categorically says that Rules 1 to 14 of Order XXXII (except Rule 2-A) 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 on enquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued. In view of the same, it is incumbent upon the Court below to make enquiry as to the incapacity and mental infirmity of second respondent in the O.P. to know whether his interest can be protected by appointing a guardian in terms of Order XXXII. No such endeavour has been made by the Court below except dismissing the impugned I.A. only on the ground that the District Judge has not adjudged the second respondent as mentally ill person. Thus the Court below failed to exercise the discretion vested in it and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustainable. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below to decide afresh in the light of Rule 15 of Order XXXII C.P.C. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 01, 2011 Tsr.