RAJENDRA NATH SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE judgment of the Court was as follows :- this revisional application is directed against Order No. 76 dated 11 june, 1999 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Seventh Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 157 of 1987 (Smt. Mira Pal and Ors. v. Promode kumar Paul and Ors. ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner is defendant No. 1 of the suit and has come up as against that order. The grievance made is that O. P. No. 5 Smt. Maya samajpati wife of Sri Tapan Samajpati is stated to be a person of unsound mind and that learned Court below illegally exercised its jurisdiction by allowing the petition under Order 32 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code without considering the other defects in the written statement and so on. ( 3 ) IT has been submitted that without taking recourse of the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 since repelled and substituted by Mental Health Act, 1987, recourse under Order 32 Rule 4 be not taken. In course of hearing of this revision petition Mr. Sahu learned Lawyer for the petitioner has urged that the cumulative effect of Order Nos. 74 and 76 on two different dates passed by the learned Court below is quite irregular/ illegal and be not allowed to remain on the grounds that: 1) without taking recourse of the provisions of Section 71 of the indian Lunacy Act, 1912 and/or the Guardians Act adherence to Order 32 is bad. 2) transposition of the opposite parties (defendants 2 to 7 in the suit itself) be not allowed to stand unless they withdraw their written statement filed before them. ( 4 ) MR. Tarakshwar Pal learned lawyer for the Opposite Party has drawn the attention of this Court that in respect of transposition of parties the nature of the suit be looked into and that recourse under the provisions of Indian lunacy Act since repealed and replaced by the Mental Health Care Act, 1987 cannot be taken and compliance of the provisions under Order 32 Rule 4 is sufficient, compliance forthe purposes of representation of such a person of unsound mind if any or at all. ( 5 ) AFTER going through both the orders I am of the view that the learned court below nowhere committed any material irregularity/illegality and/or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. ( 6 ) IT transpires that the predecessor of the Opposite Party Nos. 7 to 11 are the heir successors of the erstwhile plaintiff Profullo Kumar Paul who filed the suit for partition. Sri Sahu has in course of his argument has restricted himself within the sphere of the Indian Lunacy Act since repealed and replaced by the provisions of Mental Health Care Act, 1987 and stresses that unless a guardian is appointed under provisions of the Act there would not be any proper representation on behalf of the defendant No. 6 Maya Samajpati who is Opposite Party No. 5 herein before this Court. ( 7 ) I am afraid that it would be a far-reaching proposition that unless a guardian is appointed under the aforesaid provisions a person cannot be sued or can sue by any of his next friend. ( 8 ) PROVISION of the aforesaid Act is available only when some property is vested in such a person and that for the purpose of managing and maintaining the suit property/properties, appointment of such a guardian is a necessity. But here in this instant suit which is a partition suit in nature and that Order 32 and its provisions specifically provides about the modality of "suits by or against minor and persons of unsound mind" (in the Code of civil Procedure ). ( 9 ) WHILE all the provisions referred about minors, Rule 15 provides that rules 1 to 14 do apply to persons of unsound mind. The provisions of Mental health Act, 1987 do not/cannot override the provisions laid down in Civil procedure Code as it stands, and that is the procedural law in respect of representation of suitors. ( 10 ) IT transpires that learned Court after examining the statement of o. P. Smt. Maya Samajpati came to a finding that she is not capable of managing her own affair and as she is a married lady her husband may represent her and if not she may be represented by her mother Smt. Pratima rani Biswas. Opposite Party No. 1 herein before this Court as there is no adverse interest in between the two. Opposite Party No. 1 herein before this Court as there is no adverse interest in between the two. One grievance is made that the learned court arrived at the decision without any medical help. I am of the view that such medical evidence like that of the inquisition proceedings provided under the erstwhile Lunacy Act since repealed and new Act Mental Health Care act, 1987 is not at all a necessity in the instant case simply because the revision petitioner himself brands Maya Samajpati, O. P. No. 5 (defendant no. 6 in the suit itself) is a person of unsound mind. ( 11 ) THAT apart the revision petitioner cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the sametime, when his admitted case is OP. Maya Samajpati is of unsound mind. ( 12 ) IN respect of transposition I have gone through the petition under section 151 praying for transposition and the objection filed by this revision petitioner (defendant No. 1) before the Trial Court. ( 13 ) MUCH ado has been raised about non-compliance of the earlier order of the 9th Additional District Judge at Alipore in Civil Revision No. 194/ 94 dated 31. 10. 95 that no defects were removed from the respective pleadings of the parties. We are supposed to discuss and/or take into account about the same as if proper steps not taken by the parties, they do so at their own peril. ( 14 ) I also do find that keeping in view of the fact that the suit is a partition suit and for the present defendant Nos. 2 to 7 of the suit chose to get the suit property partitioned by meets and bound. They have been rightly transposed and that their prayer for getting the suit property partitioned negates the pleadings filed beforehand in their W. S. ( 15 ) NO arguments advanced in respect of anybody stated to be a minor, i do not find in the cause title of the petition itself anybody has been branded as a minor. ( 16 ) THE suit is of 1987, it be proceeded expeditiously after compliance of all the formalities. ( 17 ) KEEPING in view of the aforesaid discussion I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.