ORDER By consent of both parties, the main civil revision petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. 2. I have perused the records and also heard the submissions made on behalf of both parties. 3. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.7.2005 made by Additional District Munsif, Vellore in LA. No. 1342 of 2004 in O.S. No. 752 of 2004. The revision petitioner, who is the original plaintiff, has filed this petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore, appointing one P. Sarada, who is the wife of the defendant, as next friend to defend the suit. 4. In the impugned order, learned District Munsif; Vellore relied upon certain documents including Exhibit P. 1, which is a certified copy of the order made in M.H.O.P. No. 4 of 2003 dated 27.2.2004 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore District. A copy of the decreetal order is also enclosed in the typed set of papers at Page No. 25. 5. The Principal District Judge is the empowered authority under Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the Mental Health Act, 1997 for appointing guardian for persons who are declared of unsound mind. The said Act is undoubtedly a special enactment and once certified copy of the order passed by the Principal District Judge is produced, then very little can be done in the trial Court in disputing the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to Order 32 Rule 15, C.P.C., which is extracted below: “Rules. 1 to 14 (except Rule 2A) to apply to persons of unsound mind: Rules 1 to 14 (except Rule 2A) shall, so far as may be, apply to persons adjudged before or during the pendency or the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to persons who, though not so adjudged, are found by the Court on enquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued....” The said provision is wide in nature and at any time of the suit, such a declaration can be made and next friend can be appointed to prosecute or defend the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted the Court to read the provision stating that it contemplates an ‘Independent Enquiry’ for declaring a person of mental infirmity. Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted the Court to read the provision stating that it contemplates an ‘Independent Enquiry’ for declaring a person of mental infirmity. I do not find any such meaning from the reading of the said provision. The said provision only contemplates an “Enquiry” and in this case, learned District Munsif had conducted an Enquiry and the order as such does not suffer from any infirmity, and in a proceeding of this nature, the petitioner cannot be allowed to attack the Certificate given by the District Court in a collateral manner. The said order will have to be challenged in the manner known to law and until such time, the statutory order is in existence, every Court is bound to follow the said order. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in this civil revision petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. No. 5871 of 2006 is also dismissed. However, the dismissal of the civil revision petition does not preclude the petitioner from challenging the order passed by the District Court in the manner known to law.