C. R. No. 4737 OF 2006. ****** Jagjit Singh vs Sukhjit Kaur & others Present : Mr.Anish Setia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondents. ******* Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order, dated 19.8.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, declaring the petitioner mentally unfit and, therefore, appointing his counsel as his court guardian. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The learned trial Court held that the petitioner was unable to watch his interest, as he could not understand the questions, put to him, by the Court and had no knowledge of the pendency of the case or the subject matter thereof. In essence, the learned trial Court concluded that the petitioner was mentally incapable of representing his interest in the suit. The trial Court, therefore, appointed one Jatinder Kaur, Advocate, as a court guardian. Though it is true that a Court is the guardian of a mentally challenged litigant, however, any determination of his mental condition cannot be left to the sole and absolute discretion of a Court. Any conclusion as to mental health, if left to the sole discretion of a Court, may be fraught with serious consequences. The above observation shall not, however, be construed to suggest that a Court has no role to play or that a Court would abdicate its primary responsibility. All that is required is that C.R No.4737 of 2006 : 2 : before proceeding to evaluate the mental health of an individual, a Court shall obtain sufficient and credible medical opinion as to the mental capability/capacity of an individual. A Court must also take cognizance of the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987. Thus, before proceeding to assign any opinion as to the mental capability of an individual, it would be necessary to submit the person concerned for a mental evaluation by a doctor/panel of doctors, and call for a report. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned trial Court, formed an opinion as to the petitioner's mental capacity, after a brief interaction. The learned trial Court did not seek any medical opinion. The conclusion, drawn by the learned trial Court, may not be incorrect but should only have been recorded, after obtaining requisite opinion. In view of what has been stated above, the present petition is allowed, the order, dated 19.8.2006 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for a fresh adjudication of the application for appointment of a court guardian, in accordance with law. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) January 15, 2008. JUDGE `kk'