JUDGMENT The Instant revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the defendant/petitioner against the order No. 113 dated 23.6.93 passed by the learned Munsif, 5th Court. Alipore in Title Suit No. 411 of 1978 rejecting the defevdant’s application under Order 32 Rule 15 read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for holding an enquiry about the mental infirmity of the plaintiff/opposite party No.4 and after such enquiry to appoint a guardian to represent his Interest in the suit if on such enquiry the said plaintiff No.4 is found to be mentally infirm. 2. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Trial Judge in course of holding an enquiry as proposed under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the alleged mental infirmity of the said plaintiff No.4 examined him personally by putting certain questions. After such examination by the Court the learned Trial Judge was satisfied that the said plaintiff/opposite party No.4 gave rational answers to the questions put by the Court and as such was of opinion that the said plaintiff/opposite party No.4 was not incapable of protecting his interest in the aforesaid suit by reason of alleged infirmity. The learned Trial Judge also took note of the fact that there was no document to show that the said plaintiff No.4 was suffering from any sort of insanity. It has also been found from the Impugned order that after the plaintiff No. 4 was examined by the learned Trial Judge, the Learned lawyer for the defendant had expressed his intention to examine the said plaintiff No. 4 which was refused by the Court. 3. Mr. Basu Chowdhury, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Court below should have allowed the learned Advocate appearing for the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff No.4 to prove that be was insane. But I am unable to accept such contention. The Judge's power to put questions to a party or to any witness has been provided under Section 165 of the Evidence Act. But I am unable to accept such contention. The Judge's power to put questions to a party or to any witness has been provided under Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Section 165 provides, inter alia, as follows :– “The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts; ask any question be pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing and neither the parties nor their agents shall entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question. Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Act to be relevant, and duly proved.” 4. It 18 quite clear from the above provision that any party can cross-examine any witness so questioned by the Court but this right of cross-examination is not given when the Judge examines any party in terms of the above provisions of Section 165. 5. Be that as it may, it is to be seen whether by passing the impugned order, the Trial Judge has acted illegally or with material irregularity so as to occasion failure of Justice or cause irreparable injury to the petitioner requiring interference of this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The simple fact on record is that the learned Trial Judge after examining the plaintiff No.4 has come to conclude that the said person is not mentally infirm and does not require to be represented by guardian. In order to come to a such a finding the Trial Court has definitely held an enquiry as emphasized under Order 32 Rule 15 of Civil Procedure Code. Mr. Basu Chowdhury has submitted that the learned Trial Judge should have referred the matter to a Medical Board for the purpose of coming to such finding. In this connection he has referred to a decision of Madras High Court in (1) S. Chattanatha Karayalar v. Vatkuntarama Karayalar and Anr. reported in AIR 1968 Mad 346 . 6. But in my opinion, the aforesaid case has no application to the present one in view of the basic factual differences. In this connection he has referred to a decision of Madras High Court in (1) S. Chattanatha Karayalar v. Vatkuntarama Karayalar and Anr. reported in AIR 1968 Mad 346 . 6. But in my opinion, the aforesaid case has no application to the present one in view of the basic factual differences. In that case, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the person concerned was deaf and mute and characterised has suffering from mental infirmity without taking any assistance from Medical Experts. But in the present case the learned Trial Court has come to a finding that the plaintiff No.4 is not mentally infirm on the basis of the question put to him by the Court and answered by the person coherently and rationally. 7. Mr. Basu Chowdhury, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also referred to a case (2) In re: Mukhesh Rama-chandra Reddy and Others reported in AIR 1958 AP 165 and to a case in (3) Balakrishnan v. Kalliyani reported in AIR 1957 Kerala 51. But these do not help Mr. Basu Chowdhury, the learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of his contention. 8. It, further, appears from the submission of the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party that the present petitioner filed another application before the Trial Court on 15.5.93 for recalling the impugned order. Admittedly, the said application for recalling the impugned order was heard and rejected by the Trial Court by subsequent order No. 116 dated 26.7.93. 9. Mr. Basu Chowdbury, the learned Advocate has further contended that he has papers to show that the plaintiff No.4 was a mentally patient and was admitted in the mental home for treatment. But this factual aspect of the matter cannot be looked into by this Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code which does not appear to suffer from any legal infirmity. 11. The revisional application is dismissed. No order as to costs. All Interim orders are vacated. As the suit is pending since 1978 the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order without giving unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. 11. The revisional application is dismissed. No order as to costs. All Interim orders are vacated. As the suit is pending since 1978 the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order without giving unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. A copy of this order be sent to the Lower Court below by Special Messenger at the cost of the opposite party and such cost be deposited within a week from this date.