JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. Hari Shankar Srivastava is the owner-landlord of house No. 888, Dariyabad, Allahabad. Prabhat Sharma, the first applicant lives in that house as a tenant along with Smt. Savitri Sharma, Arvind Sharma, Kumari Vandana and Kumari Sushma. Smt. Savitri Sharma is his mother. Mamta Sharma who is the second applicant, is the wife of Hari Krishna Sharma through whom Prabhat Sharma has filed the present revision. He is brother-in-law of Prabhat Sharma. 2. Suit no. 32 of 1981 instituted by Hari Shankar Srivastava against Smt. Savitri Sharma and others for recovery of arrears of rent and for their eviction was decreed by the 4th Addl. District Judge Allahabad exercising powers of Judge, Small Cause Court on August 17, 1982. Civil Revision no. 647 of 1982 filed against this decree was dismissed by this Court on December 8, 1982. On the prayer made on behalf of the counsel for the applicant in that case for grant of some time to vacate the accommodation, the court granted two months further time, apart from the time already granted by the trial court for the purpose, "provided the applicants give undertaking in writing in the court below within two weeks that they would deliver the vacant possession to respondent no. 1 immediately on the expiry of two months........." The undertaking was filed on December 23, 1982 but the accommodation was not vacated within the time allowed by this Court. Hari Shankar Srivastava then put the decree into execution. The proceedings were registered as Execution case no. 4 of 1982. In it, two applications were filed by the applicant. They were registered as Misc. case nos. 2 and 3 of 1983. The latter was an application under Order XXXII Rule 5 read with section 47 CPC. An interlocutory order was passed in Misc. case no. 3 of 1983 on March 23, 1983. That order was assailed in a Civil revision before this Court under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revision was dismissed on April 2, 1983. Another order in the proceedings was assailed in civil revision no. 200 of 1983. This court disposed of that revision on April 28, 1983 observing therein that the execution case may be decided expeditiously. The case is, however, still pending. 3. The order under challenge in the present revision was passed on November 5, 1987. Another order in the proceedings was assailed in civil revision no. 200 of 1983. This court disposed of that revision on April 28, 1983 observing therein that the execution case may be decided expeditiously. The case is, however, still pending. 3. The order under challenge in the present revision was passed on November 5, 1987. The facts noticed earlier only give an idea of the time that litigation may take by recourse to proceedings before courts of law by a litigant with some ingenuity. By the impugned order, the objection under section 47 CPC has been dismissed. It has been held by the court below that applicant Mamta Sharma had been duly served with the notice of suit no. 32 of 1981 and inspite of full knowledge of the proceedings she chose not to file her own written statement or contest the proceedings. The decree against her was affirmed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 647 of 1982. She lived in the same house with applicant Prabhat Sharma and her mother and other family members who are opposite parties no. 2 to 5 to the present revision. It has also been held that Prabhat Sharma was not a person of unsound mind. He was capable of defending himself and, in fact, had actually signed the notice meant for him in the suit personally. He had also signed a vakalatnama engaging a counsel for filing Civil Revision No. 647 of 1982 in this Court apart from signing a vakalatnama in the suit itself. The written statement in the suit was duly signed by him. The decree against him did not deserve to be set aside on the ground that he was a person of unsound mind and should have been represented through a next friend in the proceedings in the suit. 4. Sri Janardan Sahai appeared on behalf of the applicants. He confined the case to the objection relating to Prabhat Sharma alone. The only submission made was that the conclusion arrived at by the court below that Prabhat Sharma was not a person of unsound mind had not been arrived at in accordance with law and deserved to be set aside. Prabhat Sharma, according to his submission, being a person of unsound mind deserved to be treated at par with a minor and a guardian should have been appointed for him. Prabhat Sharma, according to his submission, being a person of unsound mind deserved to be treated at par with a minor and a guardian should have been appointed for him. Since it was not done, the decree in suit no. 32 of 1981 was a nullity as far as Prabhat Sharma was concerned. It could not be executed against him. Order XXXII CPC treat a person of unsound mind at par with a minor. By rule 15, it makes rules 1 to 14 of this Order applicable to a person of unsound mind except rule 2-A. A decree passed against a person to whom this order applies, without appointment of a guardian is a nullity and is to be treated as non est-Ram Chandra Arya v. Man Singh, AIR 1968 SC 954 . In a case where the court, through ignorance, makes no inquiry as to the lunacy of a person and assumes jurisdiction over him, the proceeding is a nullity. The decree passed against him is also a nullity when it is found that he was incapable of protecting his interest in the suit in question-Bhondu Mal v. Thomas Skinner, AIR 1937 Allahabad 29. To bring a case under Order 32 rule 15, CPC it is not necessary to establish that a person is absolutely insane. It is sufficient if it is established that he was suffering from such mental infirmity as rendered him unfit to protect his own interest-Amulya Ratan Mukherjee v. Smt. Kanak Nalini Ghose, AIR 1950 Calcutta 30. 5. Older 32 rule 15 applies not only to a person of unsound mind but also to a person of weak mind. The court must hold a judicial inquiry and come to a definite conclusion whether by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity the person is incapable of protecting his interest. The inquiry should consist not only of the examination of witnesses produced by either parties but also examination of the alleged lunatic either in open court or in chambers and as courts are generally presided over by a layman, as a matter of precaution, the evidence of medical expert should be taken. The opinion of a doctor like opinion of any other expert under section 45 of the Evidence Act, is only a relevant piece of evidance-Duvvuri Rimi Reddi v. Duvvudu Papi Reddi, AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh 160. 6. The opinion of a doctor like opinion of any other expert under section 45 of the Evidence Act, is only a relevant piece of evidance-Duvvuri Rimi Reddi v. Duvvudu Papi Reddi, AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh 160. 6. Stray acts such as filing of suit without his next friend and filing of written statement and power under his own signature in the suit will not prove that the person of unsound mind had any sufficiently long period of lucid interval and more so when it is found that some other person was managing his affairs. It must be proved that during the pendency of the suit the person of unsound mind was in a position to protect his interests-Bhondu Mal (supra). A minor who was unrepresented in a suit by any guardian cannot be held bound by a decree passed against him although he neither alleges nor proves that a decree passed against him was unjust or to his prejudice- Mt. Chambi v. Tara Chand, AIR 1924 Allahabad 892. Where a minor defendant is effectively represented by his mother with the consent of the court, the mere fact of there being no formal order appointing the mother as a guardian will not vitiate the proceedings unless it is established that prejudice had been occasioned to the minor-Mst. Bibi Walian v. Banke Behari Prashad Singh, 7 Calcutta Weekly Notes 774 (PC). There may by grave irregularity in the appointment of guardian for a minor but unless it is established that he has been prejudiced in some manner, the proceedings cannot be held vitiated. Prejudice is an issue of fact which must be established by evidence-Ram Barechha Ram v. Tarak Tewari, 1916 (XIV) ALJ 589. 7. Where a decree is passed against a minor without appointing a guardian on the footing that he was a major and the minor objects to the execution of the decree against him, the decree being a nullity, the execution court can treat the objection proceeding as proceedings in a suit and grant a declaration that the decree was a nullity-Daulat Singh v. Mahraj Raja Ramji, AIR 1926 Alld. 387. 8. 387. 8. Cases under the Lunacy Act, 1912, which prescribes the procedure for determining the question whether a person is lunatic for purposes of the Act or not and the consideration on which the finding that he is such a person may be recorded, may not be of much help. Several decisions relating to Lunacy Act were brought to my notice by Sri A. K. Sand, appearing for the landlord. The scheme of the Act is clear. The object is to find out whether a person is a lunatic with a view to placing drastic checks upon his rights and privileges which otherwise as a normal individual he would be entitled to enjoy. It is entirely different from determination of the question whether a person is of unsound mind for purposes of Order XXXII CPC. Elaborate procedure contemplated by sections 18 and 19 should, therefore, be followed to conclude that a person was a lunatic. Mere weakness of mind has, therefore, been held by various courts including a Division Bench of this Court in Joshi Ram Krishan v. Mst. Rukmini Bai, AIR 1949 Allahabad 449, as not amounting to the person being a lunatic. The person who is to be subjected to action under the Lunacy Act should be found, for example, to be mentally deranged and on that account unable to manage his own affairs. This is, in essence, what has been held in Sonabati Debi v. Narayan Chandra Upadhya, AIR 1935 Patna 423 (DB) ; Ganga Bhavanamma v. Somaraju, AIR 1957 Andhra Pradesh 938 (DB) ; Sarjug Singh v. Gulabe Kuer, AIR 1969 Patna 33 ; K. Rayappa v. Lingappa, AIR 1975 Karnataka 5 (DB); R. Lingraj v. Parvathi, AIR 1975 Madras 285 and Rita Roy v. Satish Chandra Bhadra Roy, 1982 (1) Divorce and Matrimonial CASES 104 (DB) of the Calcutta High Court. By itself, Order XXXII CPC does not lay down the procedure by recourse to which the unsoundness of mind of a person is to be determined. The matter has been left for determination by the court on the basis of material which is relevant. It is to be determined objectively. The guiding principle should be whether the person in question is capable of looking after his own interest like a normal human being or is he berft of the extent of intelligence necessary for awareness about his own interest sufficiently. It is to be determined objectively. The guiding principle should be whether the person in question is capable of looking after his own interest like a normal human being or is he berft of the extent of intelligence necessary for awareness about his own interest sufficiently. If the actions and conduct of a person are such that a reasonable person would consider them to be sufficient indication of normal human behaviour, unsoundness of mind cannot be attributed to that person. As observed by Raghubar Dayal, J. in Joshi Ram Krishna's case unsoundness of mind can be said to be dependent on certain state of mind and on the outward conduct of the person due to his particular mental condition. It should have some connection with the derangement of mind which may be said to be a state of a disordered mind. If the mind is not in any way deranged, but is merely week or undeveloped, it cannot be said to be an unsound mind. According to Mushtaq Ahmad, J. in the same decision, the expression ' unsound mind ' " implies some unusual feature of the mind as has tended to make it different from the normal and has in effect impaired the man's capacity to look after his affairs in a manner in which another person without such mental irregularity would be able to do in a matter of his own. The idea suggests some derangement of the mind, whatever be its degree, and it is not to be confused with or taken as analogous to a mere mental weakness or lack of intelligence. " 9. In the applications filed as annexures to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application in this revision it has been given out that Prabhat Sharma was arrested on January 23, 1975 by the police under Lunacy Act and sent to Naini Jail the next day. The father of Prabhat Sharma was then alive. He secured the release of Prabhat Sharma after a year as he had improved. Thereafter, Prabhat Sharma was placed under the treatment of Dr. A. K. Tandon, Lecturer and consultant in Psychiatry, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad during the period between April 1, 1981 and March 31, 1982. There is also an averment that for sometime Prabhat Sharma was under treatment at Noor Manzil Psychiatric Centre, Lalbagh, Lucknow. Thereafter, Prabhat Sharma was placed under the treatment of Dr. A. K. Tandon, Lecturer and consultant in Psychiatry, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad during the period between April 1, 1981 and March 31, 1982. There is also an averment that for sometime Prabhat Sharma was under treatment at Noor Manzil Psychiatric Centre, Lalbagh, Lucknow. A prescription dated August 6, 1969 and a receipt for payment of the amount of bill of Noor Manzil of the same date have been brought on record as annexures. A copy of the statement which Dr. A. K. Tandon gave before the executing court on August 4, 1983 has also been filed as annexure to the affidavit. 10. The executing court has considered the evidence on the record before it. The statement of Dr. A. K. Tandon has been considered. So also the other documentary evidence. The conclusion recorded is that Prabhat Sharma could not be said to be a person of unsound mind and that at the relevant time he was capable of looking after his interest like a normal person. The court has been filed in suit no. 32 of 1981 did not mention that Prabhat Sharma was of unsound mind and was suffering from schizaprenia and thus unable to defend himself. Prabhat Sharma had affixed his signatures to the vakalatnama filed by him in various proceedings before the court below and in this court. These signatures have been made like the signatures of a normal person. There is also signature on the written statement in a like manner. The reply which he had given to the notice to quit was also like that of a normal person. The statement of Dr. Tandon according to the court, did not establish that Prabhat Sharma was not in a position to look after his own interest. The examination of Prabhat Sharma made by Dr. Tandon was, according to the statement of the doctor, only for about thirty minutes on April 1, 1981 on the basis whereof was concluded that Prabhat Sharma was a patient of schizophrenia. The executing court did not consider the statement of Dr. The examination of Prabhat Sharma made by Dr. Tandon was, according to the statement of the doctor, only for about thirty minutes on April 1, 1981 on the basis whereof was concluded that Prabhat Sharma was a patient of schizophrenia. The executing court did not consider the statement of Dr. Tandon to be a safe guide for a conclusion that Prabhat Sharma was a person of unsound mind in the sense that he was not capable of looking after his own interest like a normal human being or that he was bereft of the extent of intelligence necessary for awareness about his own interest sufficiently. As a court of fact, it was open to the executing court to come to its own conclusion on the material placed before it by the parties. The conclusion which the court has drawn in this case cannot be said to be perverse in the sense that no reasonable person would have come to that conclusion on the basis of the material on the record of the case. Prabhat Sharma was arrested under the Lunacy Act and kept in jail in the year 1975. It is not even suggested that there was any occasion thereafter for action being taken against him under the Lunacy Act till now. The view expressed by the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta in Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Smt. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, AIR 1970 Bombay 312 and in Rita Rai v. Sitesh Chandra Bhadra Rai, 1982 (1) Divorce and Matrimonial Cases 104 followed by the Executing court in its impugned order, does not run counter to what this court has said in Bhondu Mai, AIR 1937 Alld. 29 in which circumstances were these : Thomas Skinner the person in question was admitted in a lunatic asylum on the certificates of two medical practitioners on March 20, 1926 and remained there till December 1, 1926 when he was discharged on sureties being offered by some of his relations. He had to be admitted again to lunatic asylum on September 24, 1929 and was still there when the Division Bench of this Court decided the case on October 2, 1936. This court was dealing with the matter in a First Appeal. He had to be admitted again to lunatic asylum on September 24, 1929 and was still there when the Division Bench of this Court decided the case on October 2, 1936. This court was dealing with the matter in a First Appeal. It took notice of the statement of the two doctors who had stated that Thomas Skinner was suffering from chronic manis prior to the year 1926 and this mental condition had been continuing till the present time. Both the doctors had deposed that it was unlikely that Thomas Skinner had any period of lucid interval. This court recorded the conclusion that it was impossible to hold that during the entire pendency of the earlier suit from May 25, 1927 till April 21, 1928 and then upto December 14, 1929 Thomas Skinner was of sane mind and was capable of conducting his affairs. In this back-ground this court observed that stray acts like filing of suits without next friend, written statement or execution of sale deed and the presence of the signature of Thomas Skinner on a vakalatnama will not improve the matters for Bhondu Mal nor could the fact that no prejudice had been pleaded by or proved to have been occasioned to Thomas Skinner in the earlier suits due to his unsoundness of mind invalidate the proceedings. 11. The court below was not in error in taking the view, as has been canvassed in this court, that Prabhat Sharma was not a person of unsound mind as known to law, for purposes of Order XXXII rule 15 CPC 12. The decree in suit no. 32 of 1981 passed on August 17, 1982 has been affirmed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 647 of 1982 on December 8, 1982. The objection in regard to the jurisdiction of the court, which passed the decree, to try the suit does not appear to have been taken before this court in that revision. This appears from the decision dated December 8, 1982 (Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit in the stay matter in the present revision). The tenants obtained time from this Court for vacating the premises which, was granted to them on their giving an undertaking that they would deliver vacant possession to the landlord. This appears from the decision dated December 8, 1982 (Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit in the stay matter in the present revision). The tenants obtained time from this Court for vacating the premises which, was granted to them on their giving an undertaking that they would deliver vacant possession to the landlord. Later, the stand taken on behalf of the tenants was that no undertaking having been given within the time allowed by this Court, no action could be taken against them for the alleged breach of the undertaking. It has been stated in the counter affidavit, filed in these proceedings, that an application for release of the accommodation under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, made by the landlord was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on September 24, 1984 and the appeal, which the present applicants and opposite party nos. 2 to 5 filed was dismissed on November 25, 1987. Further, since after March, 1983 no amount whatsoever has been deposited by the tenants towards rent compensation for use and occupation of the premises in question. The landlord also says in the counter affidavit that he had retired from service and the official residence allotted to him had been vacated by him, in pursuance of the terms and condition of the service. He is living in two room accommodation with his wife, daughter, two sons, a daughter-in-law and one grand son with great difficulty. These circumstances make it clear beyond measure that any interference by this court with the order under challenge would result in injustice. Consequently, it would not be a proper exercise of discretion under section 115 CPC to interfere with the order under challenge. In sum, the revision deserves to be and is dismissed though the parties are left to bear their own costs. The ad interim order shall stand discharged. Revision dismissed.