[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
K.Devi vs V.Krishnamoorthy on 20 January, 2026
C.R.P.No.3335 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.No.3335 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.18373 of 2025
K.Devi ... Petitioner
vs.
V.Krishnamoorthy
S/o.R.Venkataraman,
Represented by his Power Agent
Mr.A.K.Karunakaran, S/o.A.K.Kuppusamy,
23, Nallappa Street, Chrompet,
Chennai 600 044. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated
16.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.8 of 2024 in O.S.No.1272 of 2019 on the file
of XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and allow the C.R.P.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Madhavan
For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Karunakaran
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:07 pm )
C.R.P.No.3335 of 2025
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by
the XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.8 of 2024 in
O.S.No.1272 of 2019, dated 16.06.2024 dismissing the application filed by
the petitioner under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure to
appoint Guardian/Next Friend to represent the respondent/plaintiff in the
main suit.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit for possession and other relief
against the petitioner and the same is pending. The respondent is represented
by his Power Agent in the suit. The petitioner herein filed the instant
application seeking appointment of Guardian/Next Friend to represent the
respondent/plaintiff mainly on the ground that mental capacity of the
respondent got deteriorated and he is not in a position to understand
anything. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing
counter asserting that the respondent is of sound mind and capable of
understanding things. The Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the
petitioner and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:07 pm )
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
when there is a dispute with regard to the mental capacity of the
respondent/plaintiff, the Trial Court ought to have conducted enquiry by
directing the plaintiff to appear before the Court. Instead of following the
said procedure, the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the
application on the ground that the respondent is represented by Power of
Attorney is unsustainable in law. In support of his contention, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Kasturibai and others Anguri Chaudhary reported in (2003) 3
SCC 225.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit
that the respondent/plaintiff appeared in person in the year 2022 before the
Court and therefore, there is no necessity to conduct enquiry on the mental
capacity of the respondent.
5. It is seen from the typed-set of papers the instant application was
filed by the petitioner only the year 2024. Therefore, the appearance of the
plaintiff and his examination before the Court in the year 2022 would not
help the petitioner. Once an application has been filed by the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:07 pm )
disputing the mental capacity of the respondent/plaintiff, the Trial Court
ought to have conduced enquiry to ascertain the real mental state of the
respondent/plaintiff. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the
judgment of the Apex Court in Kasturibai case cited supra and the relevant
observation reads as follows:-
“10. Order 32 Rule 15 C.P.C. reads thus:
"15. Rules 1 to 14 (except Rule 2-A) to apply to
persons of unsound mind.- 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."
11. On a bare perusal of the said provision, it is evident
that thecCourt 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 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 respondent herself had filed an
application before the trial court for holding an inquiry to the
effect that she suffers from mental infirmity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:07 pm )
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.”
6. In the case on hand, the petitioner filed the instant application
asserting that the respondent is not mentally sound and he is incapable of
understanding things. The respondent represented by his Power Agent filed
counter asserting that his Principal was of sound mind and capable of
understanding things.
7. In view of the dispute with regard to the mental capacity of the
respondent/plaintiff, it is desirable to conduct an enquiry by directing the
respondent to appear before the Court. The Trial Court without conducting
an independent enquiry with regard to the mental capacity of the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:07 pm )
ought not have dismissed the application. Therefore, the impugned order
passed by the XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.8
of 2024 in O.S.No.1272 of 2019, dated 16.06.2024 is set aside.
8. The respondent/plaintiff is directed to appear before the XIX
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in person. The XIX Additional
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, shall examine him and satisfy with regard
to his mental capacity to take care of his interest in the litigation. After the
examination, if the Trial Court is satisfied that the respondent is incapable of
taking care of his interest in the litigation, it is open to it to appoint
Guardian/Next Friend to represent the plaintiff as per the provisions of
Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
9. With these directions, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.01.2026
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:07 pm )
To
The XIX Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:07 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
20.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 03:19:07 pm )
