Judgment Mookherjee, J.: 1. The present appeal is at the instance of the substituted heirs of the sale defendant in a suit for eviction, which had been decreed exparte on 2nd August, 1982 and for setting asice of which, inter alia, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been preferred giving rise to Misc. Case No. 624 of 1982. The learned Munsiff, by the impugned Order, rejected the Misc. Case and such order is under challenge in the present Miscellaneous Appeal. The ground, which had been pleaded as sufficient cause for non-appearance of the sole defendant on the date the ex parte decree had been passed, appears to be intermittent insanity of the sale defendant, who has since died. 2. It appears from the materials on record that on 12th April, 1982, an application was made on behalf of the defendant, on verification by the defendant's brother, bringing to the notice of Court, the alleged insanity and the Court fixed 21.4.82 for furnishing particulars but no such particulars having been furnished show-cause was issued against the defendant, which again, not having been complied with, the matter was directed to appear for Orders on 12th June, 1982, in presence of learned Advocates for the parties. On the date, when the matter appeared for such Orders, none was present on behalf of the plaintiff but the learned lawyer for the defendant was present and a hazira was filed on behalf of the defendant and on that date the Court fixed up the hearing of the suit on 2nd August, 1982 when the ex parte decree had been passed. 3. In rejecting the Misc. Case the Trial Court had held, inter alia, the following: (i) The alleged insanity was untenable. (ii) There was nothing in Court Records, except the petition dated 12.4.82 about the mental or insanity or unsoundness of mind of the petitioner. (iii) Between March 1982 and April 1982, the Petitioner was in Bangiya Unmad Ashram but what occurred thereafter was not established (iv) Defendant's brother who c1aimed to have been looking after the case was aware of the date of exparte bearing. There was no sufficient cause. (v) Since legal representatives of the petitioner were available, brother had no locus standi to initiate the Misc. Case. (vi) Misc. Case was barred by limitation. 4. We have heard Mr. There was no sufficient cause. (v) Since legal representatives of the petitioner were available, brother had no locus standi to initiate the Misc. Case. (vi) Misc. Case was barred by limitation. 4. We have heard Mr. Banerjee, in support of the appeal and Mr. Roy Chowdhury, on behalf of the contesting plaintiff/respondent. It appears admitted on the records of the case that since the institution of the suit in 1917 till the making of the application, pleading insanity of the defendant, the defendant had himself been taking steps by filing written statement, by engaging lawyer and by filing affirmed affidavit by way of objection to the plaintiff's application for injunction. Only in connection with the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, certain documents were filed to substantiate the case of mental derangement of the' defendant but all such documents were posterior to the date of exparte decree in the suit and during the pendency of the suit no such material had been brought to the notice of the Court, though most of such documents remained unproved. Certain certificates of Doctors under whose treatment the petitioner was alleged to have remained had been marked as Ext. 1/1,2 series, 3 and 4 but such Exhibits had no relevance on the date of ex parte decree. The oral testimony of defendants brother was inconsistent with the conduct of the defendant himself in the suit in the matter of filing written statement and written objection as pointed out by Mr. Roy Chowdhury for the Respondent/Plaintiff. The defendant's brother, who deposed in the Misc. Case, made admissions about the fact that from the very beginning of the trial in 1976, he bad been looking after the case, had been paying rent for the tenancy with regard to the suit property, which stood in the name of the defendant, and that the date of exparte hearing, as fixed by the Court was known to him. He failed to categorically state about the insanity of the defendant on the date the suit had been disposed of by passing an exparte decree. He failed to categorically state about the insanity of the defendant on the date the suit had been disposed of by passing an exparte decree. The materials on record further indicate that in between 1976 and 12th of April, 1982 there was not even a murmur about defendant's insanity and that the defendant at the time of his death left his widow and a daughter, who had been residing separately from the defendant during the entire period of the suit. 5. No doubt, under Order 32, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is entrusted with the obligation of holding an enquiry but the onus to furnish materials to the Court to justify such an enquiry necessarily is placed on the person who may be claiming to be the next friend of the alleged lunatic or who brings such fact of insanity to the notice of the Court. It will be an extreme proposition to ask the Court to pursue an allegation made by any person whatsoever and keep the suit postponed even when no materials are furnished to establish prima facie the justification for a detailed enquiry by the Court though we are not unmindful that in view of the language of Order 32 Rule 15 such enquiry may not necessarily involve the paraphernalia of a process of adjudication. To hold otherwise would be to make it easy for an unjust reaper of benefit of the concerned litigation to stall the proceeding without any liability to penalty for misleading the Court. The inevitable result of permitting such a procedure would be to allow a just cause to suffer. In the instant case, no doubt, at the stage of decree in the suit ex parte, no specific finding had been arrived at by the Court about the plea of insanity suggested through an application .but it is indisputable that even at a subsequent stage no material had been furnished as to justify that due to failure 01 the Court to specifically reject such a plea any injustice could be said to have been caused. The factual findings summarised by u, in Clauses (i) to (iii) of foregoing paragraph 3 lend ample support to such a view of ours. Regarding the findings in Clauses (iv) and (v) in the said paragraph 3, no argument to the effect that the defendant's brother had locus standi to imtiate the Misc. The factual findings summarised by u, in Clauses (i) to (iii) of foregoing paragraph 3 lend ample support to such a view of ours. Regarding the findings in Clauses (iv) and (v) in the said paragraph 3, no argument to the effect that the defendant's brother had locus standi to imtiate the Misc. Case can in law be sustained when in fact, the legal representatives of the defendant were available. Even on merit the brother had knowledge about fixation of the suit for ex parte hearing and cannot, therefore, be entitled to any relief under second limb of Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the above facts the finding about limitation also must be sustained. 6. For the grounds aforesaid, the appeal must fail and should stand dismissed but before doing so we would like to mention that the case relied on by Mr. Banerjee reported in (1) AIR 1988 Kerala 160, which really followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in (2) AIR 1973 Bombay 276, does not exonerate the person alleging the disability under Order 32, Rule 15 from furnishing appropriate materials for enabling the Court to hold the required enquiry and as such does not have any application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the contrary, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (3) Ram Chandra Arya v. Man Singh and Another reported in AIR 1968 SC 954 lays down that the satisfaction of the Court in terms of Order 32, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a necessary pre-condition before holding a decree to be a nullity and in the instant case the party responsible to furnish materials for satisfaction of the Court failed to do its duty and thus it cannot be said that non-holding of any enquiry, if at all by the Court resulted in vitiating the decree. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed with costs assessed at 30 gms. Jain, J.: I agree.