9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against refusal to entertain application under Section 151 of CPC for recalling an order. Applicability of Order 32 Rule 15 CPC for appointment of a guardian. Error in treating application for recalling as an appeal. Jurisdictional error in passing judgment without holding inquiry on mental infirmity. Analysis: The judgment in question involved an appeal against the refusal of the High Court to entertain an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling an order. The case originated from a civil suit for partition of immovable properties where the respondent sought the appointment of a guardian for an elderly appellant based on alleged mental incapacity. The trial court dismissed the application, prompting a revision application under Section 115 of CPC, which was allowed by the High Court, directing the trial court to appoint a guardian. The appellants subsequently filed an application for recalling the order, arguing that notices were not served, but it was mistakenly treated as an appeal by a Division Bench, leading to dismissal. The main contention raised in the appeal was regarding the interpretation of Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, which deals with the appointment of a guardian for persons of unsound mind or incapable of protecting their interests due to mental infirmity. The court highlighted that the respondent did not claim the appellant was of unsound mind but had requested an inquiry into mental infirmity. The trial court's failure to conduct this inquiry led to a jurisdictional error in passing the judgment, which was upheld by the Division Bench erroneously treating the recalling application as an appeal. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, concluded that the Division Bench erred in treating the application for recalling as an appeal against the earlier order. The court emphasized the importance of complying with Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, which necessitates a proper inquiry into mental capacity before appointing a guardian. As no such inquiry was conducted, the judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for a fresh consideration in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgments were set aside, emphasizing the necessity of following procedural requirements and conducting inquiries as mandated by the law. The court clarified the application of Order 32 Rule 15 CPC and directed a reevaluation of the case based on the legal provisions and observations made in the judgment.
|
