1 2025:CGHC:49258 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 212 of 2025 Order reserved on 29.08.2025 Order delivered on 25.09.2025 Sanjay Kediya S/o Late Shri Hariram Kediya Aged About 55 Years Caste Agrawal, Presently R/o Flat No. 604, HR-3, Shrikrishna Sharnam, Opposite Of Kripalu Hospital, Vrindavan, District Mathura (U.P.), R/o Baradwar Tahsil And District Sakti (C.G.) --- Applicant versus 1 - Saroj Kediya D/o Late Shri Hariram Kediya Aged About 56 Years Caste Agrawal, R/o Baradwar, Tahsil And District Sakti (C.G.) Through Next Friends Sharad Kediya, S/o Shri Omprakash Kediya, Aged 41 Years, R/o Baradwar, Tahsil And District Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Omprakash Kediya S/o Late Shri Hariram Kediya Aged About 62 Years Caste Agrawal, R/o Baradwar, Tahsil And District Sakti (C.G.) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District President, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) --- Non-applicants CR No. 206 of 2025 Sanjay Kediya S/o Late Shri Hariram Kediya Aged About 55 Years Caste- Agrawal, Presently R/o Flat No. 604, HR-3, Shrikrishna Sharnam, Opposite Of Kripalu Hospital, Vrindavan, District- Mathura (U.P.) R/o Baradwar Tahsil And District- Sakti (C.G.) ---Applicant YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.26 11:57:30 +0530 2 Versus 1 - Saroj Kediya D/o Late Shri Hariram Kediya Aged About 56 Years Caste- Agrawal, R/o Baradwar, Tahsil And District Sakti (C.G.) Through Next Friends Sharad Kediya, S/o Shri Omprakash Kediya, Aged 41 Years, R/o Baradwar, Tahsil And District- Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Omprakash Kediya S/o Late Shri Hariram Kediya Aged About 62 Years Caste- Agrawal, R/o Baradwar, Tahsil And District- Sakti (C.G.) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District President, Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Non-applicant No.3 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge CAV Order 1. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in the present set of civil revisions, they have been clubbed together for the sake of convenience. Accordingly, both the revisions have been heard analogously and are now being disposed of by this common order. 2. By filing CR No.212/2025, the applicant has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant 3 revision and quash the order dated 01/05/2025 passed by the District Judge (F.T.C.), Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) passed in Civil Suit No. 01-A/2024 by which the application of the plaintiff Under Order 32 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed in the interest of justice.” 3. By filing CR No.206/2025, the applicant has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and quash the order dated 01/05/2025 passed by the District Judge (F.T.C.), Sakti, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) passed in Civil Suit No. 01-A/2024 by which the application of the defendant no.1 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected in the interest of justice.” 4. Civil Revision No.212/2025 has been filed by the applicant/defendant No.1 assailing the order dated 01/05/2025 passed by the District Judge (F.T.C.), Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.01-A/2024, whereby the application under Order 32 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) filed by non-applicant No.1/plaintiff was allowed and Shri Sharad Kediya was appointed as the next friend of the non-applicant No.1/plaintiff. 4 5. Civil Revision No.206/2025 has been filed by the applicant/defendant No.1 assailing the order dated 01/05/2025 passed by the District Judge (F.T.C.), Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.01-A/2024, whereby the application filed by the applicant/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC was rejected on technical grounds. 6. The applicant herein is defendant No.1 before the Trial Court; non-applicant No.1 is the plaintiff, while non-applicants No.2 and 3 were defendants No.2 and 3. For convenience, parties are being referred to by their status before the trial Court. 7. Brief facts of the cases, in a nutshell, are that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of Late Shri Hariram Kediya, who passed away on 22/02/1991, leaving behind his ancestral property which was partitioned among the heirs. Thereafter, all the parties remained in peaceful possession of their respective shares. Defendant No.1 later shifted to Vrindavan, District Mathura (U.P.) after renouncing worldly life. On 09.05.2024, the plaintiff, through next friend has filed Civil Suit No.01-A/2024 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land situated at Village Baradwar, P.H. No.15, bearing Khasra Nos.562/1 and 562/2, area 37 decimal, upon which an ancestral house also exists. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC supported by medical documents showing 45% intellectual 5 disability. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that the suit was collusive in nature as it was filed at the instance of defendant No.2 and his son, who was acting as the next friend of the plaintiff. 8. Defendant No.1 further filed a reply opposing the application under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC, questioning its maintainability, while the plaintiff in turn filed an affidavit under Order 32 Rule 3(4) read with Rule 15 CPC. 9. Defendant No.1 also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, which was registered as I.A. No.5, whereas the plaintiff’s application filed under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC was registered as I.A. No.06. 10. The District Judge (F.T.C.), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), by order dated 01/05/2025, allowed the application filed under Order 32 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, holding that in view of the medical certificate indicating that the plaintiff is 45% mentally disabled and unable to speak, his interest would not be jeopardized unless he is being represented through a next friend. The Court further rejected the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, holding that none of the conditions contemplated under the said provision were attracted in the plaint filed by the plaintiff, to dismiss the suit. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant in Civil Revision No.212/2025 submits that the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the 6 learned District Judge (F.T.C.), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that while appointing a next friend of the plaintiff, the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration the provisions contained under Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as the mandatory provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Court Rules. Learned counsel would further contend that the learned Court has committed a grave error of law by allowing the application under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC without recording any judicial satisfaction or conducting a mandatory enquiry into the mental condition or incapacity of the plaintiff, as contemplated under Rule 26 and Rule 38(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Court Rules. It is urged that the appointment of the next friend is vitiated by conflict of interest, inasmuch as the person appointed as next friend is none other than the son of defendant No.2 and, therefore, stands disqualified under the provisions of Order 32 Rule 4 CPC. Learned counsel would also argue that the impugned order suffers from misappropriation of facts and misapplication of law, resulting in grave injustice to the applicant/defendant No.1. It is further submitted that no judicial enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the Court below about the mental condition of the plaintiff, which is mandatory under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC read with Rule 38(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Court Rules. Consequently, the appointment of the next friend 7 stands vitiated and is void ab initio. Learned counsel would lastly contend that the medical documents filed by the plaintiff himself in an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff is mentally fit and capable of understanding, which completely demolishes the very foundation of the application under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant in Civil Revision No.206/2025 submits that the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (F.T.C.), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the learned Court below has committed material irregularity and illegality in rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, despite the fact that the plaint, on the face of it, was barred by law owing to the wrongful appointment of a next friend/guardian without following the mandatory procedure contemplated under Order 32 CPC. Learned counsel would submit that the appointment of Shri Sharad Kumar Kedia as next friend of the plaintiff itself was under challenge, and mere acceptance of such appointment by the Court could not cure the jurisdictional defect or render the plaint immune from scrutiny under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is further urged that the Court below erred in law by treating the acceptance of an application under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC as a conclusive bar to maintainability of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, whereas both 8 provisions operate in distinct spheres, and the acceptance of one does not preclude examination under the other. Learned counsel would argue that the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC specifically raised the objection that the suit was barred by law and it is a nullity in the absence of a validly appointed next friend, which goes to the root of maintainability and jurisdiction, yet the same has not been addressed by the Court below. It is submitted that the learned trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law by not adjudicating upon the foundational issue of legal competence of the plaintiff to institute the suit through the next friend, which vitiates the entire proceedings. It is further contended that while dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, the trial Court did not record any findings on the legality, propriety, or compliance of the appointment of the next friend under Order 32 CPC, thereby rendering the order unsustainable in law. Learned counsel would lastly contend that the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary, and based on misappropriation of facts and misapplication of law, and if allowed to stand, would result in grave injustice to the applicant/defendant No.1 by permitting continuation of a suit that is otherwise not maintainable in law. 13. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that there is no material to show any conflict of interest of the next friend, and the trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff’s interest would not be jeopardized. The application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC was 9 rightly rejected as the plaint does not disclose any bar under law. Hence, the revisions are liable to be dismissed. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appointment of a next friend for the non-Applicant No.1/plaintiff has been made in complete non-compliance with the mandatory provisions contained under Order 32 CPC read with the Chhattisgarh Civil Court Rules. Such non-compliance renders the appointment illegal, void ab initio, and consequently vitiates the entire plaint and subsequent proceedings. As per Rule 26 and Rule 38(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Court Rules, read with Order 32 Rule 4-A CPC (as amended in Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh), strict compliance is mandated to safeguard the interest of minors or persons of unsound mind. The affidavit in support of appointment of a next friend must disclose particulars of guardianship, custody, and fitness of the proposed next friend. The receiving officer of the plaint is duty-bound to verify compliance of these requirements. However, in the present case, no such compliance was made. It has been further submitted that under Order 32 Rule 4 CPC, it is a settled position of law that a next friend must not have any interest adverse to the interest of the plaintiff. In the instant case, the appointed next friend, Shri Sharad Kediya, being the son of non-Applicant No.2/defendant No.2, has a direct adverse interest in the disputed ancestral property. This disqualification alone dis-entitles him from acting as next friend of the plaintiff. Further, as per Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, 10 before permitting the institution of proceedings on behalf of an alleged person of unsound mind, the trial court is bound to conduct a judicial inquiry into the mental capacity of the concerned party. Such inquiry includes examination of witnesses, medical opinion, and recording of satisfaction regarding unsoundness. In the present case, no such mandatory inquiry has been conducted. The medical documents placed merely show that the plaintiff is 45% intellectually disabled and mute, but capable of hearing and understanding. There is no finding or medical certification of unsoundness of mind rendering him incapable of protecting his interest. Hence, the appointment of next friend is wholly mechanical, illegal, and without jurisdiction. The wrongful appointment of next friend without adherence to the aforesaid mandatory provisions vitiates the institution of the suit itself, thereby rendering the plaint unsustainable in law. It is also submitted that Order 32 CPC and Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC are distinct provisions operating independently. Acceptance of an application under Order 32 does not bar consideration of an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The Applicant/Defendant No.1 is, therefore, well within his rights to press for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on account of being barred by law. 15. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.P. Natarajan & Another v. Muthalammal & Others, (2021) 15 SCC 817, in 11 which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that under Order 32 CPC, where a minor or person of unsound mind is involved, a guardian/next friend must be appointed only after the court conducts an inquiry. The appointee must be shown to be a “fit person” and must not have any adverse interest. It has further been reiterated that mechanical appointment of a guardian/next friend without conducting such inquiry amounts to a serious procedural irregularity and vitiates the entire proceedings. Similarly, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Aparna Pandey v. Jai Prakash Pandey, FA(MAT) No. 21 of 2022, decided on 06.07.2022 has held that if pleadings or evidence suggest that a party is of unsound mind or mentally infirm, the court must invoke Order 32 Rule 15 CPC. The Court is under a duty to hold an enquiry and ensure that such person is represented by a fit next friend or guardian. Failure to follow this procedure renders any decree passed against such person null and void. 16. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents along with these civil revisions. 17. From perusal of the impugned order dated 01.05.2025, it is apparent that the learned District Judge (F.T.C.), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) has recorded a categorical finding that the plaint was presented on behalf of plaintiff Smt. Saroj Kedia by her 12 nephew Shri Sharad Kumar Kedia, who had sought to be appointed as next friend/guardian for the plaintiff, in a suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of the ancestral house constructed over land measuring 37 decimals situated at Village Baradwar, P.H. No. 15, Khasra Nos. 562/1 and 562/2. The trial Court noticed that along with the plaint, an application under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC was filed supported by medical documents showing that the plaintiff was suffering from 45% intellectual disability and was also unable to speak. On the basis of the said medical record, the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was incapable of protecting her own interest in the proceedings and therefore justified in instituting the suit through a next friend. Accordingly, the trial Court allowed the application under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC and appointed Shri Sharad Kumar Kedia as next friend of the plaintiff. 18. The objection raised on behalf of defendant No.1 that Shri Sharad Kumar Kedia was the son of defendant No.2 and hence disqualified to act as next friend was specifically dealt with, and the trial Court held that at this stage there was no material on record to indicate that the interest of the plaintiff would be jeopardized or that any conflict of interest existed between the plaintiff and her next friend. 19. This Court shall first take up Civil Revision No. 212/2025 for consideration. 13 20. The main contention of the applicant while disputing application under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC (which is in fact Rule 15 of the CPC) is concerned that the learned trial Court has not enquired into the matter and without there being any enquiry has allowed application filed under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC (Rule 15 of the CPC) holding that from the medical documents, it appears that plaintiff is not a fit and sound mind to prosecute her case. 21. At this stage, it would be relevant to extract Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, which is as under :- “15. Rules 1 to 14 (except Rule 2A) to apply to persons of unsound mind. Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) 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.” 22. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that, while deciding an application under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, the Court cannot act mechanically or on mere assertions made in the pleadings. The provision mandates that the Court must conduct an enquiry to satisfy itself whether the plaintiff, for whom 14 appointment of a guardian or next friend is sought, is in fact suffering from such mental or physical infirmity that she is incapable of protecting her own interest in the litigation. The underlying object is to ensure that no person is deprived of the conduct of her case unless the Court, upon due enquiry, finds her legally incompetent to prosecute the proceedings. 23. From a perusal of the provision, it appears that an enquiry is required to be conducted; however, the provision does not specify the nature or manner of such enquiry. In the matter of Kasturibai and others v. Anguri Chaudhary, (2003) 3 SCC 225, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with an identical issue has held as under :- “11. On a bare perusal of the said provision, it is evident that the court is empowered to appoint a guardian in the event a person is adjudged to be of unsound mind. It further provides that even if a person is not so adjudged but is found by the court on inquiry to be incapable of protecting his or her interest when suing or being sued by reason of any mental infirmity, an appropriate order thereunder can be passed. The respondent did not contend that Appellant 1 herein is of unsound mind. As noticed hereinbefore, the 15 respondent herself had filed an application before the trial court for holding an inquiry to the effect that she suffers from mental infirmity. 12. The learned trial court refused to do the same and in that view of the matter the High Court, in our opinion, while setting aside the said order could only issue a direction directing the learned trial Judge to hold an inquiry so as to enable it to arrive at a finding as to whether the respondent herein was incapable of protecting her interest by reason of any mental infirmity or not. As no such inquiry was held, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the learned Single Judge committed a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment which, the Division Bench as noticed hereinbefore upheld.” 24. Likewise, in the matter of Kashi Bai and another v. Kashi Ram and others, 2001 (1) M.P.H.T. 239, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held as under :- “6. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar it is apposite to refer to Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code. It reads as under: 16 "15. Rules 1 to 14 (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." On a bare perusal of the rule it becomes graphically clear that it deals with two distinct classes of persons. The first category relates to the persons who have been adjudged to be of unsound mind. The other category is concerned with persons who are not so adjudged but those whom the Court may find incapable to protect their interest because of any mental infirmity. As far as second category is concerned a mandate is cast on the Court to conduct an enquiry. However, there is no indication about the method and manner in which the enquiry is to be conducted. It can safely be said that the type of enquiry would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The aforesaid 17 rule has been interpreted by many a High Court and the Courts have expressed the view that if a person who has not been adjudged as a person of unsound mind under the provisions of the Lunacy Act, 1912 is also covered for the benefit of this rule if the Court upon enquiry finds out that the person by reason of any mental infirmity is incapable to protect his interest when suing or being sued. The Court is required to hold a judicial enquiry and come to a finding with regard to incapability of the person concerned. In this context I may profitably refer to the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of B.K. Khanna Vs. K.N. Khanna and others, AIR 1978 Delhi 48, wherein it has been held as under:- "10....... The provisions contained in Order 32 not only empower the Court to take appropriate steps where a party to the proceedings is a minor or a person who is incapable of protecting his interest whether by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity, but also cast a mandatory duty on the Court to take steps to ensure 18 proper representation for such persons so as to ensure that their interest in relation to the proceedings are fully protected. These provisions are a legislative recognition of the well-known principle that the State, as indeed the Court, which is part of the judicial wing of the State is in locus parentis to its citizens, who are either minors or are incapable of protecting their interests in judicial proceedings by reasons of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity. There can, therefore, be no doubt that before the Court proceeds with a suit or other proceedings, in which one of the parties is either a minor or otherwise incapable of protecting his interests, the Court is bound to hold a preliminary enquiry and, is satisfied that the conditions of the relevant rules are attracted, to make appropriate directions with regard to the proper representation of such persons….” It has also been held by the Courts that a person who is mentally infirm by reason of physical ailment can invoke the provision enshrined under Order 32 Rule 15. The main 19 thrust of submission of Mr. Tripathi is that no enquiry has been conducted. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel I have perused the impugned order with utmost anxiety. It is noteworthy to mention here that the plea of unsound mind of defendant No. 1 was canvassed by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and in support of their plea they filed certain documents. The learned Trial Judge has carefully scrutinised the said documents and has expressed his opinion in that regard. He has found that the documents are not worthy of credence and I do not find any compelling reason to differ with the same. Quite apart from the above the learned Trial Judge has examined the defendant No. 1 by putting him certain questions which are relevant for the purpose of the controversy and has found that the defendant No. 1 is in a position to answer the said questions and hence, it can be concluded that he is capable of defending himself. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that an enquiry has been conducted by the learned Trial Judge and 20 finding has been recorded after due enquiry. As conclusions are reached on proper appreciation of facts on record and examination of defendant No. 1, I do not perceive any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction in passing of the impugned order.” 25. Further, in the matter of K. P. Natarajan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the scope of Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, has reiterated that it is incumbent upon the Court to hold such enquiry and record a finding regarding the incapacity of the person concerned, before permitting the case to be prosecuted through a next friend or guardian. Failure to adhere to this requirement would vitiate the proceedings, as it goes to the very root of jurisdiction, by observing as follows :- “22. In fact the learned Judge also went into the question whether a decree passed against a minor without proper appointment of a guardian, is a nullity ipso facto or whether the same would depend upon prejudice against the minor being established. The learned Judge found that in this case, the minor was prejudiced. 21 23. It may be of interest to note that Rule 3-A was inserted in Order 32 by the CPC Amendment Act 104 of 1976. It is this Rule that introduced for the first time into the Code, the question of prejudice to the minor. But this Rule 3-A applies only to cases where the next friend or guardian for the suit of the minor had an interest in the subject matter of the suit adverse to that of the minor. This amendment was a sequel to certain conflicting opinions on the question as to whether a decree passed in cases where the minor was represented by a guardian who had an interest in the subject matter of the suit adverse to that of the minor, was void or voidable. 24. In other words the Parliament chose to introduce the element of prejudice, specifically in relation to one category of cases under Order 32, Rule 3-A. The case on hand does not fall under that category. In any case, we need not go into that question in this case, as the learned Judge found that the minor was prejudiced. 22 25. A valiant attempt was made during the hearing, to show that the 3rd Respondent/defendant was not a minor at all. Such a contention was sought to be raised on the basis of the long cause title in the execution application E.A.No.65 of 2017 where the 3rd Respondent was described as a person aged about 24 years in the year 2017. Therefore, it was sought to be contended that he should have attained majority long before the ex parte decree and that therefore the question of appointment of a guardian and the decree becoming a nullity did not arise. 26. The said contention is to be stated only to be rejected. It was the petitioners herein who filed the suit in the year 2013 describing the 3rd defendant as a minor and seeking the appointment of a guardian. Therefore, there is no place for any innovative arguments contrary to one’s own pleadings.” 26. This Court in the matter of Aparna Pandey (supra) has held as under:- 23 “11. Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC (except rule 2A) applies to persons of unsound mind. It governs the suit by or against a person with mental incapacity and the same reads as under : “15. Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) to apply to persons of unsound mind - Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) 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.” 12. Order 32, Rule 3 contemplates filing of an application for the appointment of guardian where the respondent is alleged to be a person of unsound mind. Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure extends the application of Order 32, Rules 1 to 14, except Rule 2A, to the persons adjudged before or during the pendency of the suit, to be of 24 unsound mind and shall also apply to persons, who, though not so adjudged, are found by the Court on enquiry to be incapable by reasons of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued. 13. In a like nature of case, the High Court of Madras, in the matter of L. Hemalatha Vs. N.P. Jayakumar reported in AIR 2008 MADRAS 98, has held thus in para 21.3 to 21.6 : “21.3 The expression, “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” found in Order 32, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that a duty is cast on the Court to arrive at the finding whether on the pleadings or even in the absence of any pleading, when it is brought to the notice of the Court by the evidence on record whether any person is found by the Court, on enquiry to be incapable of 25 protecting his or her interest, when suing or being sued and such duty, in our considered opinion, is mandatory and not discretionary. Any deviation from the above rule would render Order 32, Rule 1 to 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure redundant, inasmuch as the Court is expected to be a guardian of interest of the minors and persons of unsound mind who are incapable of protecting their interest. Therefore, the duty cast on the Court is to consider whether the respondent is in a position to act independently or not and whether the appointment of a guardian is necessary or not, and render necessary finding. 22.4 In the instant case, the petitioner husband, having alleged that the respondent-wife is a person of unsound mind, ought to have filed an application for appointment of guardian, because even on his own pleadings, the respondent-wife, being a person of unsound mind, could not defend herself. 26 22.5 The trial Court ought to have satisfied itself whether the respondent-wife is a person of unsound mind or not. If the trial Court on the basis of materials placed before it, finds that the allegations of the petitioner-husband are not sustainable, there is no need to appoint a guardian to defend the respondent-wife. On the other hand, if it is satisfied that the respondent- wife is a person of unsound mind, it should appoint a guardian to defend her. Such duty has not been discharged by the trial Court in the instant case. 21.6 The primary duty of a Court is to see that truth is arrived at. But, the trial Court has simply accepted the case of the petitioner-husband without insisting on an application under Order 32, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The failure on the part of the petitioner-husband and the lapse on the trial Court to discharge the mandatory obligation as contemplated under Order 32, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 10 27 of the Family Courts Act would render the order as a whole nullity in the eye of law.” 14. Applying the aforesaid principles and the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Abhishek Lal vs. Smt. Minakshi Filomin vide judgment dated 1.7.2022 passed in FAM No.224 of 2018, in the case at hand, we are of the opinion that when the specific pleadings existed that the wife of the respondent is of unsound mind and it was well within the knowledge of the husband- respondent, she ought to have been represented before the Court below by the 'next friend' by invoking the provisions contained in Section 32 Rule 15 of the CPC or the Court below should have made an enquiry in due regard. Apart from the aforesaid facts, the dates and events would show that the exparte proceeding itself was not justified.” 27. From a perusal of the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15 CPC as well as the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Natarajan (supra) and Kasturibai (supra) as also by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Kashi Bai (supra), it becomes 28 apparent that although the Code does not prescribe any detailed procedure for holding an enquiry, the requirement of conducting a summary enquiry by the trial Court is implicit and mandatory. The object is to ensure that before depriving a litigant of the right to conduct her own case, the Court must be satisfied, on the basis of enquiry, that the person is incapable of protecting her interest due to mental infirmity. 28. Such enquiry, however, is not intended to be a full-fledged trial or a roving adjudication into the mental condition of the plaintiff. Rather, the enquiry is to be confined to the limited purpose of determining whether the plaintiff is in a fit mental condition to prosecute the proceedings. For this purpose, the Court may rely upon medical documents placed on record, the submissions of parties, and, if necessary, its own interaction with the plaintiff in Court so as to assess her ability to comprehend and protect her legal rights. Even a cursory observation of her physical appearance and conduct during such interaction may aid the Court in forming its satisfaction. 29. In view of the above legal position, the order impugned dated 01.05.2025 passed in Civil Suit No.01-A/2024, by which the application under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC (Rule 15 of the CPC) was allowed without conducting such enquiry, cannot be sustained. 30. In the result, Civil Revision No. 212/2025 is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 01.05.2025 passed in Civil Suit 29 No.01-A/2024 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of the District Judge, (F.T.C.), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), with a direction to decide the application filed under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC afresh. While doing so, the trial Court shall hold a preliminary enquiry, in terms of the observations made hereinabove, to determine whether the plaintiff requires the appointment of a next friend for proper conduct of the case. The trial Court shall also reconsider the application filed under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC (Rule 15 CPC) and conduct such brief enquiry, as may be necessary, to ascertain the physical and mental capacity of the plaintiff to safeguard his/her interest in the proceedings. Thereafter, the trial Court shall pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law. 31. Next, this Court shall take up Civil Revision No. 206/2025 for consideration. 32. While considering the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC is concerned, the Court observed that the said provision contemplates rejection of a plaint only in limited contingencies, namely, where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or is barred by law, or suffers from other statutory defects. Since in the present case none of the conditions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC were satisfied, the objection of defendant No.1 was found to be untenable. Consequently, the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC was rejected by the trial Court. 30 33. So far as the rejection of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it is the case of the applicant that in the application moved under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC (now Rule 15 CPC), there is no specific pleading regarding the plaintiff being of unsound mind, and that it was merely stated that the plaintiff is deaf and dumb. It was contended that such an averment does not meet the requirement of law, as the provisions contained under Order 32, particularly Rule 4 thereof, are mandatory in nature. It was further urged that Rule 38(viii) and Rule 26 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Court Rules have also not been complied with, and therefore, the very institution of the suit suffers from inherent defects and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. 34. This Court, however, finds no substance in the aforesaid contention. At the very outset, it is to be noted that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to confine itself only to the averments made in the plaint. Neither the defence of the defendant nor any external material can be looked into for the purpose of rejection of the plaint. 35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and more recently in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366, has consistently held that the power under 31 Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is a drastic one and must be exercised only when the plaint, on the face of it, does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by any law. 36. A perusal of the plaint in the present case does not disclose any such bar under law which may warrant its rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The objection raised by the applicant with respect to the plaintiff’s alleged incapacity and the applicability of Order 32 Rule 1 CPC (Rule 15 CPC) is a matter which this Court has already directed the trial Court to enquire into, by holding a preliminary enquiry regarding the physical and mental capacity of the plaintiff and by reconsidering the application under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC (now Rule 15 CPC). Therefore, the very basis on which the rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is sought stands addressed by the directions already issued hereinabove. 37. Furthermore, the objections raised by the applicant touches upon disputed questions of fact relating to the status of the plaintiff, the maintainability of the suit in respect of coparcenary property, and compliance with certain procedural rules. All such issues are matters for adjudication in trial after framing of appropriate issues. 38. At this stage, those questions cannot be gone into while exercising jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is well settled that the Court cannot consider the defence or written statement while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 32 39. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The Civil Revision No.206/2025, to that extent, is devoid of substance and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC stands affirmed. 40. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh