Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sushma Kanpathak, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 13/06/2016 passed by the Trial Court in HMP No.183/2014. The Trial Court had suo motu directed the petitioner to comply with Order XXXII Rule 15(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and appoint a 'next friend' on the ground that the petitioner was of unsound mind. The petitioner, represented by Mr. M.D. Narwadkar, contended that the Trial Court had not conducted any enquiry before arriving at such a finding. The respondent, Umesh Kanpathak, was represented by Mr. S.S. Naik. The High Court examined the scope of Order XXXII Rule 15, which applies to persons adjudged to be of unsound mind or found by the court on enquiry to be incapable of protecting their interest due to mental infirmity. The court noted that the Trial Court had not held any enquiry and had merely formed an opinion based on the petitioner's behavior in court. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kasturi Bai v. Anguri Chaudhary (2003) 3 SCC 225, which held that the court must conduct an enquiry and record a finding before directing appointment of a next friend. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter without insisting on a next friend unless an enquiry is conducted.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order XXXII Rule 15 - Appointment of Next Friend - Requirement of Enquiry - The Trial Court cannot suo motu direct appointment of a next friend under Order XXXII Rule 15(3) without first holding an enquiry to determine whether the litigant is of unsound mind or incapable of protecting their interest. The court must either have an adjudication of unsoundness of mind or find on enquiry that the person is incapable by reason of mental infirmity. (Paras 6-8) B) Civil Procedure Code - Order XXXII Rule 15 - Scope of Powers - The powers under Order XXXII Rule 15 are not to be exercised arbitrarily; the court must record a finding based on enquiry before directing appointment of a next friend. The Supreme Court in Kasturi Bai v. Anguri Chaudhary (2003) 3 SCC 225 held that the court must be satisfied after enquiry that the person is incapable of protecting their interest. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court can suo motu direct appointment of a 'next friend' under Order XXXII Rule 15(3) of the CPC without holding an enquiry into the mental capacity of the litigant.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13/06/2016 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with HMP No.183/2014 without insisting on the appointment of a next friend, unless an enquiry is conducted as per Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC.
Law Points
- Order XXXII Rule 15(3) CPC requires either adjudication of unsoundness of mind or a court enquiry finding incapacity to protect interest before appointing a next friend
- Suo motu appointment without enquiry is impermissible
