KASTURI BAI AND ORS. versus ANGURI CHAUDHARY

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 892 · Decided: 05-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KASTURI BAI AND ORS. 
.,...__ 
v. 
ANGURICHAUDHARY 
FEBRUARY 5, 2003 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Jr 
~ 
" 
~ 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
c 
Order 32, Rule 15-Appointment of guardian-Suit for partition-
Plaintiff filing application for appointment of guardian to defend one of 
defendant aged 87 years-Application rejected by trial court-Revision-
-..., 
Allowed by Single Judge of High Court-Application for recalling order of 
Single Judge-Treated as appeal by Division Bench and rejected-Held, High 
Court, while setting aside order of trial court, could only issue a direction to 
D trial court to hold an inquiry so as to enable it to arrive at a finding as to 
whether defendant was incapable of protecting her interest by reason of any 
mental infirmity or not-As no such inquiry was held, Single Judge committed 
/ 
a jurisdictional error in passing the order which the Division Bench upheld-
...f., ..-
Matter remitted to trial court for consideration strictly in terms of Order 32, 
rule 15. 
E 
S. I I 5-0rder passed by Single Judge of High Court in revision-
Application/or recalling the order-Treated by Division Bench as appeal and 
rejected-Held, Division Bench of High Court committed a manifest error in 
treating the application as an appeal-No intra court appeal lay before a 
F 
Division Bench as the order was passed by Single Judge in exercise of revisional 
..... 
jurisdiction-Appeal-Intra court appeal. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 818 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2000 in MCC 482/99 of the 
~·.,...
G High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur. 
Gaurav Jain and Ms. Abha Jain, for the Appellants. 
+ 
..
B.S. Banthia, for the Respondent. 
H 
892 
KASTURI BAI v. ANGURI CHAUDHARY 
893 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
Th is appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 11.8.2000 
passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur 
A 
in MCC. No. 482 of 1999 whereby and whereunder it refused to entertain an 
application filed by the appellants herein purporting to be under Section 151 B 
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C. ') for recalling of an 
order passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court dated 5.5.1999 
passed in Civil Revision No. 2761 of 1998 which in turn arose out of an 
order dated 3.11.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shahdol, 
Madhya Pradesh in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1993 dismissing an application 
filed by the respondent herein .under Order 32 Rule 15, C.P.C. 
C 
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the appellant herein for 
partition of certain immovable properties. The appellant No. I herein at the 
relevant point ohime was aged 87. Alleging inter alia that she had lost her 
ability to understand and further is not capable to give instructions to her D 
lawyer or anybody else relating to the said suit, a prayer was made by the 
respondent herein that she be summoned in the Court so as to enable the 
court to inquire about her state of mind and upon medical examination. If 
necessary, a guardian be appointed for defending her in the suit. 
The learned trial Judge by reason of the order dated 3.11.1998 dismissed E 
the said application stating 
" .... But in the verification para of her affidavit Anguri Chaudhary 
has verified para 1-3 and 4 of the affidavit on the basis of her personal 
knowledge and para 2 on the basis of knowledge received from her F 
relations and known persons. But Anguri Chaudhary has neither 
mentioned the names of her relations and known persons nor disclosed 
the time and place of receiving the knowledge from them. No 
explanation has been given for inordinate delay of 49 months in 
bringing the fact of forged signature of Kasturibai on her written 
statement filed on 31.8.94. In this case Kasturibai is defendant No. l G 
but in I.A. No. 17 and affidavit in support she has been referred as 
"defendant No.3" and." defendant No. 3 Kasturibai". The affidavit 
of Anguribai filed in support of IA. No.17 is not reliable in these 
circumstances. Therefore IA. No. 17 is dismissed." 
H 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] I S.C.R. 
A 
Questioning the said order, the respondent herein filed a revision 
B 
c 
D 
application in terms of Section 115 ofC.P.C. before the High Court. The said 
+ 
application was marked as Civil Revision No.2761 of 1998. The High Court 
by reason of its order dated 5.5.1999 allowed the revision application directing 
" .....
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.