Abhinava Upadhya, J.:- By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order of the court below by which their application to be treated as persons suffering from mental disorder, has been rejected. 2. The suit was filed for permanent injunction against the defendants-petitioners. The petitioner No.2 is the defendant no.1 in the suit. He has filed an application that he is suffering from mental disorder and, therefore, he should be permitted to contest the matter through guardians. This application has been rejected by the court below holding that no material or any certificate by any competent Doctor regarding mental disability has been filed by the petitioners and, therefore, such a contention cannot be accepted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was incumbent upon the court as provided under Order 32 Rule 5 sub-rule (2) read with Section 151 CPC to have made enquiry about petitioner no.2 with regard to his mental status. That having not been done, the impugned order is erroneous and needs to be set-aside. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the order impugned. 5. The petitioners, who are claiming mental disability of petitioner no.2, it was incumbent upon them to give some material to the court to indicate the aforesaid disability. Neither any certificate of any Competent Doctor has been filed nor any indication has been given that the petitioners are undergoing any treatment for the said disability. 6. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in my view, the court below has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners. 7. There is no error in the order of the court below. 8. The writ petition is mis-conceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed.