Himachal Pradesh High Court
Indpur vs Dhani Ram on 3 December, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
ON THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CIVIL MISC. PETITION MAIN (ORIGINAL) No.230 of 2021
Between:
BALRAM SINGH,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O SHRI DHANI RAM,
S/O SH. SHANKAR,
R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE
INDPUR, TEHSIL INDORA,
KANGRA, H.P.
....PETITIONER
(BY MR. VIJENDER KATOCH,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DHANI RAM,
S/O SH. SHANKAR,
S/O SH. LEHNU,
R/O VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE INDPUR,
TEHSIL INDORA,
KANGRA, H.P.
2. HARPAL SINGH,
S/O SH. DHANI RAM,
S/O SH. SHANKAR,
R/O VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE INDPUR,
TEHSIL INDORA,
KANGRA, H.P.
3. RAHUL,
S/O SH. HARPAL,
S/O SH. DHANI RAM
S/O SH. SHANKAR,
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:22:29 :::CIS
2
R/O VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE INDPUR,
.
TEHSIL INDORA,
KANGRA, H.P.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. AJAY SHARMA,
SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR.
ATHARV SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting?. Yes.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated
18.8.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Indora, District Kangra,
HP, whereby an application under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, having been
filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (herein after referred to as "the plaintiff"),
praying therein for appointment of natural guardian for defendant
No.1, came to be dismissed, plaintiff has approached this Court in the
instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
praying therein to set-aside the order passed by the court below and
constitute medial board to examine the mental health of defendant
No.1, who is 88 years old.
2. Pursuant to notice issued in terms of order dated
5.10.2021, Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, has put in appearance on
behalf of the respondent.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by the court
below, while passing the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality
and infirmity in the order impugned in the instant proceedings and as
.
such, no interference is called for.
4. Precisely, in the case at hand, plaintiff, who happens to be
son of defendant No.1, filed an application Order 32 Rule 15 CPC,
praying therein for appointment of natural guardian on behalf of
defendant No.1, who is 88 years old on the ground that he is not in fit
state of mind and as such, is being exploited by the other defendants,
who also happen to be son and grandsons of defendant No.1.
5. Perusal of impugned order reveals that court with a view to
ascertain correctness of the allegation made in the application
summoned defendant No.1 to the court and asked few questions.
Having interacted with defendant No.1, court found him to be in fit
state of mind. Court observed that though defendant No. 1, being old
aged person may be suffering from various ailments, but he
understands each and everything and as such, it cannot be said that
he being of unsound mind is not able to protect his interest in the
ongoing proceedings.
6. Though Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that to ascertain factum with regard to mental
illness, if any of defendant No.1, medical board can be constituted, but
Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned senior counsel representing the respondents
opposes the aforesaid prayer on the ground that once court below after
having interacted with defendant No.1 has recorded its satisfaction
with regard to mental state of mind of defendant No.1, there is no
occasion, if any, to accede to the aforesaid request made by the
.
plaintiff.
7. Having carefully perused provision contained under Order
32 Rule 15 CPC, this Court is of the view that it is the satisfaction of
the court, which is of utmost importance, while acceding prayer, if any,
made for appointment of natural guardian. Aforesaid provision/rule
suggests that if court, during proceedings of the case, comes to
conclusion or finds a person to be of unsound mind, it after having
made inquiry, can proceed to appoint natural guardian. In the instant
case, learned trial court, applying aforesaid procedure laid down in
Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, asked few questions to defendant No.1 and
found defendant No.1 to be in fit state of mind. Leaving everything
aside, no material worth credence has been led on record suggestive of
the fact that mental state of defendant No. 1 is not good and he is being
exploited by the other defendants.
8. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no
illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the court
below and as such, same is upheld. As a consequence of which,
present petition fails and dismissed being devoid of any merit.
3rd December, 2021 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
