JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents. 2. The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of possession in respect of the land as described in the schedule appended to the plaint which is referred hereinafter as the “suit land”. Having received the sum, it appears from the record, that both the defendants, the respondents herein, filed separate written statements by denying the relief as prayed in the suit. The defendant No.1 has also filed one application under Order XXXII Rule 1 and 15 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for appointing the guardian for the person with unsound mind as the defendant No.1 was suffering from grim psychiatric illness. In his written statement, the respondent No.1 has disputed the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner of a bonafide transaction on payment of the consideration amount. That apart, the respondent No.1 has also disputed that there is any cause for instituting the suit. But by filing the written statement, the defendant-respondent No.1 has claimed that he was suffering from schizophrenia for cannabis abuse and he was under long-term treatment. 3. It is to be noted that the written statement filed by the defendant-respondent No.1 was filed through the defendant-respondent No.2 and the defendant-respondent No.2 on his instruction filed the said written statement separately. Even the defendant-respondent No.2 in her written statement has raised the same issue of mental incapacity of the defendant-respondent No.1. Thus, while the said application for appointment of the guardian to represent the defendant No.1 in the suit was filed, admittedly, the Civil Judge Senior Division, Gomati Tripura, Udaipur took the expert opinion from the Standing Medical Board of Tripura Sundari District Hospital at Udaipur. 4. There is no dispute that the Medical Board primafacie observed that the defendant No.1 had been suffering from the mental illness. Having the said report on records, the Civil Judge, Senior Division has passed the order dated 10.04.2017 in Civil Misc. 4. There is no dispute that the Medical Board primafacie observed that the defendant No.1 had been suffering from the mental illness. Having the said report on records, the Civil Judge, Senior Division has passed the order dated 10.04.2017 in Civil Misc. 07 of 2017 which read as under : “As per the report of the Medical Board constituted to determine the illness of the defendant No.1, namely, Mrityunjoy Shib he is suffering from schizophrenia with cannabis abuse which is a serious mental illness and so, there is no doubt in reaching to the conclusion that the defendant No.1 is not only medically unsound but also legally unsound. Thus, in view of the provision of Rule 1 read with Rule 15 of order XXXII of C.P.C. it is necessary to appoint a guardian for the defendant No.1 to run the original suit. As per the petition of this case the wife of the defendant No.1, namely, Smti. Shilpi Debnath (Shib), i.e., the defendant No.2 of the original suit is the legal guardian of the defendant No.1 as because the parents of the defendant No.1 are no more. Thus, the defendant No.2 of the original suit Smti. Shilpi Debnath (Shib) shall act as the guardian of the defendant No.1 to run the original suit on his behalf till his recovery from his illness.” 5. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two-pronged objection against the said order which is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Those are : (1) Whether report of the Medical Board was straightway accepted by the civil judge without any opportunity to take explanation from the Medical Board as to the mental illness as recorded in their report ? and (2) Whether the said finding could have effect of the final decision of the civil court in that regard or not ? 6. Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that both the defendants have taken a consistent stand in their respective written statement that the defendant No.1 has been suffering from schizophrenia from cannabis abuse and that has been supported by the expert and as such, the court has determined that issue and appointed the defendant No.2 as the guardian of the defendant No.1 for purpose of the suit. 7. 7. It is really a matter of concern that while passing an order appointing a guardian within the meaning of Rule 15 Order XXXII, CPC the Civil Judge ought to have observed his opinion as a primafacie opinion, else, that might hit the adjudicatory mechanism, which was yet to commence. For this purpose Rule 15 of Order XXXII, CPC is extracted hereunder : “15. 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 of 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.” 8. The appointment of the guardian on the opinion as available in the medical certificate, issued by the Sub-Division Medical Officer without examining the officer on oath and without making any other inquiry is improper and illegal as it has been observed in Tirtha Pradhan And Ors. vs. Balabhadra Pradhan And Anr. reported in AIR (1993) Ori 1993. In this case, on the basis of the report of the Medical Board, the said right to representation has been given to the defendant No.2. 9. The court ought to have resorted to a process where the plaintiff is given opportunity to examine the expert from the Medical Board on the material points, but that was not given. It is well settled that for such decision, the opposite party cannot be prejudiced at any stage. In the suit, when the principal dispute is that whether the sale deed related to the suit land was executed by the defendant No.1 in sound mind or not, the decision on that aspect will have cascading effect over the main issues involved in the suit. Notwithstanding at this stage, this court is not inclined to disturb the appointment of the guarding for purpose of representation of the defendant No.1. But is made clear that the observation as made in the order dated 10.04.2017 is primafacie in nature and in the process of the final adjudication, the Civil Judge shall not be influenced by that opinion. Notwithstanding at this stage, this court is not inclined to disturb the appointment of the guarding for purpose of representation of the defendant No.1. But is made clear that the observation as made in the order dated 10.04.2017 is primafacie in nature and in the process of the final adjudication, the Civil Judge shall not be influenced by that opinion. The defendants who raised that issue of the mental incapacity, they are to independently prove that the mental illness as pleaded in the written statement did exist at the relevant time of execution of the sale deed or that the defendant No.1 was suffering from the mental incapacity to execute any deed. 10. The other question that has been raised has been answered in the report as referred above. If the opinion is treated as the primafacie opinion the suit has to be determined providing opportunity to the disputants as per provision of Rule 15, Order XXXII, CPC. To avert any prejudice to any party in the suit, this court has observed as above. The adjudicating court shall observe such procedure. In terms of the above, this petition stands disposed of.