CR No.6536 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6536 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.10.2010 Sukhraj Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus M/s Gulzari Lal Vipan Kumar ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. TPS Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.25974-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.6536 of 2010 This is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 25.9.2010 whereby his application filed under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC for conducting an enquiry to appoint a guardian to protect the interest of the petitioner, was dismissed. As per averments made in this petition, the plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit for recovery against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is mentally infirm and is incapable to protect his interest and as such the application was filed under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC to hold an enquiry and appoint a Court guardian to protect his interest. The aforesaid application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent. Vide impugned order the aforesaid application was dismissed. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred at law while dismissing the application without holding an enquiry. According to him, CR No.6536 of 2010 (O&M) 2 along with the application, the petitioner had attached medical certificate of sickness issued by a doctor, however, the same was not considered by the Court. It is his case that these medical certificates clearly show that the petitioner was advised complete rest. According to the petitioner under the provisions of CPC, the Court is empowered to appoint a guardian in the event a person is adjudged to be of unsound mind and since no inquiry was conducted, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the other documents placed on record of this revision petition. It is not in dispute that the case is fixed for 9.10.2010 for leading evidence of the defendant being the last opportunity. From the certificates attached with this petition, it cannot be made out that the petitioner is suffering from mental sickness. As per these certificates, he is required only a regular treatment and rest. There is prima facie no proof to prove infirmity of the defendant-petitioner as claimed. The petitioner has not brought any expert witness to prove his case. Moreover, the application has been filed on the instructions of the petitioner himself and in view of the aforesaid fact, it cannot be held that the petitioner is mentally sick. It seems that the application has been filed to delay the disposal of the suit. Thus, the impugned order does not warrant any interference of this Court. Dismissed. October 7, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE