1 2025:CGHC:40668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 71 of 2019 1 - Sundarmani S/o Ramesh Khare Aged About 45 Years R/o Through Rajendra Kumar Khare, Near Acc Main Gate, Telgu Mohalla, Rajiv Nagar, Post And Thana- Jamul Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.........Defandent No. 01., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ku. Tanuja Kurre D/o Late Shri Roop Ram Kurre Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Bhanu Kumar Mahilange, S/o Shyam Lal Mahilange, Age About 40 Years, R/o Krishna Nagar, Ganesh Chowk, Ward No.-3, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh......Defandent No.2, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent Of Police Through P.T.S. Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh......Defandent No.3, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Naya Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.....Defandent No. 4., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sandip Kurre S/o Late Roopdas Kurre Aged About 19 Years Through Rajendra Kurre, R/o Block No. 4a, A Pocket, Maroda Sector, Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.......Plaintiff., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/ Defendant No.1 : Shri R.K. Gomasta, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 & 3/ State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. For Respondent No.4/ plaintiff : Shri B.P. Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.08.2025 SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order passed by the learned Sixth Additional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 41A of 2016 dated 9.10.2018, whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the plaintiff, in prayer clause D of the plaint, has categorically stated that defendant No.1 is an insane person and is suffering from a mental disorder, and sought relief to stay the pension payable to him. He would further submit that an application under Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC was moved on behalf of defendant No.1 to permit him to appear through a next friend, considering his mental condition, but the learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that medical documents, except a prescription, had not been produced. He would also submit that defendant No.1 is a person of unsound mind, the sufficient medical documents were produced before the Court below, and there is an admission on the part of the plaintiff; therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. He would pray that the impugned order be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner failed to adduce sufficient documentary evidence to prove the petitioner’s mental status; therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application. 4. Learned counsel for the State would support the contention made by counsel for respondent No.4. 3 5. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC, which deals with the procedure for the appointment of next friend in respect of persons of unsound mind, 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.” 7. In the present case, an application under Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC was moved on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.1 through his brother on the ground that he is a person of unsound mind. A prescription was also placed on record along with the said application. However, the learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that other documents had not been produced. 8. A plain reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that if such an application is preferred, the concerned court has to conduct an enquiry with regard to the mental status of the person. Further, the plaintiff himself has admitted the fact that the petitioner is a person of unsound mind. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial Court ought to have considered the pleadings made in the plaint, the material placed on record, and the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC while deciding the application. 9. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to decide the application afresh. The petitioner would be at liberty to place the 4 medical documents and other evidence before the learned Court below. The concerned Court shall decide the application strictly in accordance with the law. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi