Judgment :- This revision has been preferred by the 5th defendant in the suit as against the dismissal of the I.A., filed by him under Order 32, Rule 2 CPC to reject the Plaint. 2. According to the 5th defendant, the plaintiff, his father, is mentally infirm and incapable of knowing which is to his interest and which is against his interest. He is incapable of protecting himself and such a mental condition is deteriorating for the past three years which is known to the entire villagers. In fact the respondent/plaintiff was looked after in the house by his widow daughter all these years and it is only the 5th defendant is collecting the rent on his behalf. 3. The elder brother of the 5th defendant is an avaricious persons and with a view to knock away all the property of the father, he has engineered and instituted the suit. The respondent/plaintiff in fact did not know the content and nature of the suit filed at the instance of the elder brother. He has also filed another frivolous suit in O.S.No:61 of 2002. Therefore, the present instituted by the father of the 5th defendant, with mental unsoundness without being represented by a next friend is not maintainable and therefore the Plaint itself is liable to be rejected. 4. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the said suit denying the allegations made in the said I.A., It is also stated that the defendant has made false allegations with bad intention. The plaintiff reserves his right to sue for damages for such false averments. It is only by such ill treatment meted out to him, he is indisposed of and is taking treatment in a private nursing home at Gobichettipalayam. .5. The learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam dismissed the said I.A., holding that PW.3, the Doctor who treating the plaintiff himself stated that the plaintiff does not suffer from mental instability. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been filed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the learned Trial Judge has not followed the well-established principles and without making a judicial inquiry with the help of a Medical Expert to know the mental condition of the plaintiff, has dismissed the application and had acted in a prejudicial manner to help the person behind the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the learned Trial Judge has not followed the well-established principles and without making a judicial inquiry with the help of a Medical Expert to know the mental condition of the plaintiff, has dismissed the application and had acted in a prejudicial manner to help the person behind the plaintiff. The trial judge did not satisfy himself before arriving at the decision by making the person concerned to appear before the court to assess the reality. The procedures contemplated under the Mental health Act are ignored. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in C.S. Navamani Vs. C.K. Sivasubramanian reported in 2006 (4) CTC 657 in support of his contention and prayed that the trial court may be directed to conduct a judicial inquiry and dispose of the I.A., afresh in accordance with law. 7. But, a perusal of the said judgment would show that the case on hand is factually distinguishable and cannot be applied on all fours. In the said case a learned Judge of this Court after analysing the authorities in Kasturi Bai and others Vs. Anguri Chaudhary ( AIR 2003 SC 1773 ) and Shakunthala Devi Vs. K.S.Naidu and another ( 2004 (3) MLJ 658 ) held that when there is an allegation of unsound mind or mental infirmity, it is the duty of the court to examine the individual and if necessary, seek the assistance of an expert to adjudge as to whether the individual is having a sound mind and capable of managing the affairs and as a precaution, the evidence of expert in the Medical profession will be useful in understanding the meaning and the symptoms of any disease dealing with mental deterioration. In the above said case the trial court mechanically appointed a court guardian on a medical certificate and in such circumstance, this court directed that the trial court ought to have summoned the individual and examined him to adjudge that he is not capable of defending himself. .8. But in the instant case it is only the defendant has filed the I.A., challenging the mental stability of the plaintiff. Further, in this case, P.W.3, the Doctor, examined on the side of the defendant himself supported the case of the plaintiff. .8. But in the instant case it is only the defendant has filed the I.A., challenging the mental stability of the plaintiff. Further, in this case, P.W.3, the Doctor, examined on the side of the defendant himself supported the case of the plaintiff. In his deposition has stated that he knows the plaintiff for the past 44 years i.e., he knows him as a schoolmate. According to his assessment, though the plaintiff has been slow in his movement and taking a decision on any matter particularly when a matter involves application of mind, he is not insane or mentally unsound. P.W.3 withstood even during cross examination and only contended that "double mind" only denotes a weak or slow in his actions and deeds. He also deposed that for the past 35 years the plaintiff is taking treatment with him, though he had a neurotic disorder, he is having good mental soundness and capacity of recollecting the things. When there is such a categorical opinion given by an medical expert who was summoned by the revision petitioner/defendant that the respondent/plaintiff is not an insane or mental infirm person, which is sufficient and satisfactory, there is no necessity for this court to direct the trial court to make any further enquiry to adjudge the mental capacity of the plaintiff. 9. For the reasons stated above, this CRP is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.