Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a guardian ad litem could be appointed for a party who was not formally adjudged of unsound mind but was shown to be incapable of protecting his interests by reason of mental infirmity.
Analysis: Order XXXII Rule 15 extends the protective procedure to a person who, though not adjudged of unsound mind, is found on inquiry to be incapable, by reason of mental infirmity, of protecting his interests when suing or being sued. The Court distinguished unsoundness of mind from mental infirmity and held that a formal enquiry under the lunacy law was not required. On the materials before it, including medical opinion and the circumstances showing abnormally low intellectual functioning, the Court found that the party could not effectively safeguard his interests in the litigation.
Conclusion: The condition for appointment of a guardian ad litem was satisfied, and the appointment was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The Court granted the protective relief sought and directed that the proceedings continue with representation through a guardian ad litem for the affected party.
Ratio Decidendi: A guardian ad litem may be appointed under Order XXXII Rule 15 where the person is not formally adjudged insane but is found, on inquiry, to be incapable by reason of mental infirmity of protecting his interests in litigation.