ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. Though the matter is listed in the fresh category however, on joint request of the counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard today itself. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers- “i). by an appropriate writ, order or direction; an order dated 06.05.2024 (Annex.-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside; ii). by an appropriate writ, order or direction; a separate order sheet dated 06.05.2024 (Annex.-8) may kindly be quashed and set aside; iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction; an application (Annex.-3) of the Petitioner under Order 32 Rule 4, 5, 15 and read with Sec. 151 of CPC may kindly be Allowed. iv) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper pro in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the Petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the performa respondent no.4 had preferred a suit for specific performance of contract, cancellation of gift deed and perpetual injunction against the defendant/respondents on the ground that respondent No.1 possessed an agricultural land at khasra No. 121 admeasuring 14 bigha 1 biswa, Khasra No. 121 /1 admeasuring 3 bigha 12 biswa, khasra No. 122 admeasuring 17 bigha 19 biswa and Khasra No.122/1 admeasuring 12 bigha and total land being 47 Bigha 12 biswa at Chak-1, Patwar Mandal Jajiwal, Tehsil and district Jodhpur which the respondents no. 1 and 2 agreed to sell the aforementioned land in dispute to the respondentno. 4 through an agreement dated 15.07.2021 for consideration of an amount of rupees 90 lacs. Thereafter, in pursuance of the same, the plaintiff requested the respondent No.1 to execute the sale deed which was denied by the respondent No.1 and thus, the plaintiff preferred the aforementioned suit (Annex.1). In response to this plaint (Annex.1), the respondent no. 1 and 2 submitted a joint written submission (Annex.2) while denying the averments of the plaint. 4. Thereafter, in pursuance of the same, the plaintiff requested the respondent No.1 to execute the sale deed which was denied by the respondent No.1 and thus, the plaintiff preferred the aforementioned suit (Annex.1). In response to this plaint (Annex.1), the respondent no. 1 and 2 submitted a joint written submission (Annex.2) while denying the averments of the plaint. 4. After the matter was posted for recording plaintiff’s evidence, the petitioner/applicant submitted an application under Order XXXII Rule 4, 5 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for the appointment of a next friend of the plaintiff, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 01.03.2024 (Annex.5). Subsequent thereto, the petitioner/applicant preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing number 5064/2024 while praying to direct the learned Trial Court to decide the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff afresh by holding an enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15, which came to be allowed vide order dated 04.04.2024 (Annex.6). 5. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, after conducting the enquiry, rejected the application filed by the petitioner/applicant vide order dated 06.05.2024 (Annex.7). Aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 06.05.2024 (Annex.7), the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointing him as the next friend to the respondent no. 4/plaintiff, inasmuch as there would be no harm caused to the respondents on account of such appointment of the son of respondent no.4/plaintiff as her next friend, when the respondent no.4/plaintiff is a senior citizen, aged 87 years, and is not in the position to contest the case as per her best ability. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Trial Court has not adhered to the order passed by this Court, inasmuch as even though the learned Trial Court has observed that the respondent no.4/plaintiff had started loosing sight and hearing capacity, however the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration her physical and mental condition, and rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXII Rule 4, 5 and 15. He also submits that there is no bar for the appointment of the son of respondent no. He also submits that there is no bar for the appointment of the son of respondent no. 4/plaintiff as the next friend of respondent no.4/plaintiff and thus, the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 06.05.2024 (Annex.7). 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court had asked 27 questions to respondent no. 4/plaintiff, to which the respondent no.4/plaintiff, replied in a calm and composed manner, which reflects that she not only understood the questions, but also was not having any difficulty in remembering and narrating past incidents which subsequently leads to the conclusion that the respondent no.4/plaintiff was not suffering from any mental infirmity and thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioner has not demonstrated by way of producing any medical report or any other documents, to support her contention that the respondent no.4/plaintiff was actually suffering from any mental infirmity and thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXII Rule 4, 5 and 15 in accordance with law. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused material available on record. 11. This Court finds that vide order dated 04.04.2024 (Annex.6), this Court had issued specific directions to the learned Trial Court to hold an enquiry as laid down under Order XXXII Rule 15 of CPC, in order to decide whether the respondent no. 4/plaintiff is of unsound mind, i.e. whether she is incapable of protecting her interest while being sued or suing by reason of her mental infirmity. The relevant part of the order dated 04.04.2024 (Annex.6) is reproduced as under: “23. In the light of the above discussion, this Court allows the writ petition. The order dated 01.03.2024 (Annex.5) passed by learned Additional District Judge No.7, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court with a direction to hold enquiry as contemplated under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC and to decide whether the plaintiff is of unsound mind viz. if she is incapable of protecting her interest when suing or being sued by reason of any mental infirmity. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court with a direction to hold enquiry as contemplated under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC and to decide whether the plaintiff is of unsound mind viz. if she is incapable of protecting her interest when suing or being sued by reason of any mental infirmity. The parties are accordingly directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 25.04.2024 and the learned Trial Court shall thereafter, after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the parties decide and dispose of the application under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC expeditiously and thereafter proceed to decide the suit accordingly. Stay Petition as also misc. application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.” Therefore, vide order dated 04.04.2024 (Annex.6), the parties were specifically directed to appear before the learned Trial Court, in order to determine whether the respondent no.4/plaintiff is of unsound mind, while giving opportunity of hearing to them. 12. Upon perusal of the order passed by the learned Court dated 06.05.2024 (Annex.7), this Court finds that pursuant to the order dated 04.04.2024 (Annex.6), an enquiry was conducted on 29.04.2024, whereby the respondent no.4/plaintiff got her examination-in-chief done and as many as 27 questions were asked from her, to which she replied in a calm and composed manner, after listening to the questions as well as comprehending them rightly. It is also seen that these 27 questions ranged from respondent no. 4/plaintiff’s personal life, including age, her husband’s death, number of children to the topics of general knowledge such as the Lok Sabha election, wherein she had also casted her vote from her home as she was unable to go to the booth, which reflects that she had knowledge about the nature of questions asked as well as their implications. This Court also finds that the Trial Court has although observed that the respondent no. 4/plaintiff had been a bit nervous while responding to questions relating to her husband’s as well as her son’s death, however it was rightly noted by the learned Trial Court that this proved that she was sensitive when such questions were asked, however, this cannot be attributed to mental infirmity. 13. Moreover, this Court also finds that the learned Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that when the respondent no. 13. Moreover, this Court also finds that the learned Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that when the respondent no. 4/plaintiff was asked as to whether she was seeing any doctor, she replied that she was completely fine but had visited a doctor some time back and was even admitted, on account of her poor eyesight and hearing problem. 14. Furthermore, this Court also finds that on the basis of these questions asked, the learned Trial Court has given its categorical findings which are as follows: Therefore, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of the conduct of the respondent no.4/plaintiff, coupled with the answers given by her, that the respondent no. 4/plaintiff is not suffering from any mental infirmity which would render her incapable of protecting her own interests in case she sues or is being sued. It is also seen that, with respect to her physical condition, apart from having a poor eyesight and hearing capacity, the respondent no. 4/plaintiff is not suffering from any physical difficulty. 15. This Court also finds that Order XXXII Rule 15 applies to persons, who are either adjudged, before or during the pendency of suit, or in case of not being adjudged, they are found by the Court on enquiry, of unsound mind, i.e. those who are incapable of protecting their interest in case of being sued or suing someone, on account of their mental infirmity, a next friend shall be appointed in such cases only. The relevant provision reads as under: “ORDER XXXII Suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind 15. The relevant provision reads as under: “ORDER XXXII Suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind 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 being sued.” Therefore, upon a conjoint reading of the provision, this Court finds that it is not only required that the person for whom an appointment of next friend is sought for under Order XXXII Rules 1 to 14, is incapable, it is also required that such incapacity found by the Court on enquiry, shall be by the reason of any mental infirmity, which may refrain that person of unsound mind to protect his/her interest when suing or being sued, which has not been found in the present case. 16. This Court also finds that the petitioner has failed to take on record before this Court and the learned Trial Court, any medical certificate or document, which proves that the respondent no. 4/plaintiff is suffering from mental infirmity and is not capable of protecting her interests while being sued, or suing someone. Thus, taking into consideration the provision, i.e. Order XXXII Rule 15 of CPC, read with the observations of the learned Trial Court, in the absence of any medical certificate or document, proving that the respondent no. 4/plaintiff is physically and mentally not capable of representing herself in the suit, this Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and thus, deems it fit to dismiss the instant writ petition. 17. Accordingly, in the light of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is dismissed. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.