Guardianship under Order 32 Rule 15 requires a prior inquiry into mental infirmity before appointment can stand.

A recall application against an order passed in revisional jurisdiction could not be treated as an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench, so the High Court erred in entertaining it on that basis. Under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, a guardian may be appointed only after the court conducts the required inquiry and records a finding that the person is of unsound mind or is otherwise incapable of protecting her interests because of mental infirmity. In the absence of that inquiry, appointment of a guardian was impermissible, and the matter had to be remitted for fresh consideration after the mandated inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in treating the recall application as an intra-court appeal and entertaining it against an order passed in revisional jurisdiction; (ii) Whether a guardian could be appointed under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without first holding the required inquiry into the person's mental infirmity.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in treating the recall application as an intra-court appeal and entertaining it against an order passed in revisional jurisdiction

Analysis: An order passed by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction did not give rise to an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench. The application seeking recall ought not to have been treated as an appeal against the revisional order.

Conclusion: The High Court acted erroneously in treating the recall application as an intra-court appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether a guardian could be appointed under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without first holding the required inquiry into the person's mental infirmity

Analysis: Order 32 Rule 15 applies where a person is adjudged of unsound mind or is found on inquiry to be incapable of protecting her interest by reason of mental infirmity. In the absence of such inquiry, a guardian could not be appointed; the proper course was to direct the trial court to conduct the inquiry and then decide the matter afresh.

Conclusion: Appointment of a guardian without the mandatory inquiry was impermissible, and the matter required remand for fresh consideration under Order 32 Rule 15.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial court for reconsideration in accordance with law after the requisite inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: A guardian under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be appointed only after the court conducts the required inquiry and records a finding of unsoundness of mind or incapacity arising from mental infirmity; such a protective order cannot be sustained without that inquiry.

---