1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 362 of 2026 1 - Bhai Narayandas @ Narayandas Udasi S/o Shri Dharamdas Udasi Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Aamapara Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Govind Udasi S/o Shri Narayandas Udasi Aged About 35 Years Petitioner Number 2 Is Unsound Mind Person, Through Legal Guardian Father Bhai Narayandas @ Narayandas Udasi S/o Shri Dharamdas Udasi, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Aamapara Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Nishant Sharma S/o Shri Nandkishore Sharma Aged About 32 Years R/o Banspara Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 27.03.2026 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.03.30 18:26:24 +0530 2 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Dhamtari (CG) in Civil Suit No. 11-A/2025, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/ respondent under Order 32 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC, application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was allowed and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent is prosecuting the civil suit for specific performance of the contract dated 26/07/2022 against the defendants/petitioners before the learned trial Court. Initially, the plaintiff has made the party defendants in their own capacity, however, the defendant No. 2 is the differently abled person suffering from 45% mental disablement and he is unable to understand the proceeding of the Court. Therefore, the suit cannot be proceed without there being any next friend of him and the suit was liable to be dismissed. He would also submit that the plaintiff/ respondent had filed an application under Order 32 Rule 3 of CPC for appointment of next friend of the defendant No. 2 as the defendant No. 2 is suffering from mental disablement. The learned trial Court without holding any inquiry as provided under 32 Rule 15 CPC, allowed the application and the defendant No. 1 was appointed as next friend of the defendant No. 2. Instead of directing for inquiry Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC, allowing the application would cause prejudice to the defendants. He would further submit that the plaintiff was required to implead the defendant No. 2 through the defendant No. 1 by appointing him or proposing him as next friend and a defect cannot be cured in the subsequent stage of 3 proceeding, therefore, the impugned order allowing the application under Order 32 Rule 3 of CPC is liable to be set aside and in consequence the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC may be set aside and the plaint may be rejected. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4. From perusal of copy of the plaint annexed as Annexure-P/2, it transpires that the plaintiff has made the defendants in their individual capacity and there is no mentioning about the mental status of the defendant No. 2 or he has been made as a party/ defendant No. 2 through his next friend. The defendants have filed their under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on 05.01.2026 in which in Para 2, they themselves have submitted that the defendant No. 2 is a differently abled person, suffering from 45% mental disablement and he is unable to understand the proceeding of the case. He also annexed the medical certificate of the defendant No. 2 along with the application and averred that without there being any application under Order 32 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC, the suit was not maintainable. From perusal of the document annexed as Annexure P/3, it transpires that the plaintiff has already filed an application before the learned trail Court under Order 32 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC on 11.12.2025 in which he proposed the defendant No. 1 to be next friend of the defendant No. 2 as the defendant No. 2 is suffering from mental disability. The learned trial Court having considered the provisions of order 32 Rule 3 of CPC and Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC, allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and appointed defendant No. 1 who is the father of defendant No. 2 as his next friend to defend the case on behalf of 4 the defendant No. 2 also. When the defendants themselves have averred that the defendant No. 2 is suffering from mental disablement to the extent of 45% and he is unable to understand the proceeding of the case, allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 32 Rule 3 of CPC, does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. When the defendants themselves have admitted about disablement of defendant No. 2, there was no need for direction for any inquiry into the matter, particularly, the disability of the defendant No. 2 is supported by their own document. 5. The defendants have also raised their objection that without there being any appointment of next friend for defendant No. 2, the suit itself was not maintainable, the plaint may be taken off from the suit. When the defendant No. 1 has already been appointed on behalf of the defendant No. 2 as his next friend, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC as the ground raised by the defendants in the application has already been taken care and the next friend has already been appointed, therefore, rejection of the application of the defendants filed under Order 7 Rule 11, also does not suffers from any perversity or illegality. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE sagrika