ORDER : Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the District Judge Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.5A/2017, whereby, an application under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the next friend (daughter of Respondent No.1) to pursue the Suit because her mother is suffering from mental infirmity, was allowed. 2. Necessary facts for adjudication of the present petition are that earlier, the petitioner had also filed a writ petition viz WP(227) No.367/2020 before this Court challenging the order dated 21.01.2020 passed in Civil Suit No.5A/2017 by the 3rd Additional District Judge Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.), by which the application filed by the daughter of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 has been allowed and she has been permitted to represent the plaintiff in the Civil Suit. The said Writ Petition was dispose of vide order dated 19.06.2020 by observing that as no enquiry was done as it is provided under Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC, so the suitable order may be passed in that respect after making an enquiry. After such order, the learned trial Court has made an enquiry and passed the impugned order. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings arrived at by the trial Court is not justified. Plaintiff is not of unsound mind even she had filed a Civil Suit No.226A/2013, for declaration of death of her husband before the Civil Court, Raipur and she had also passed Class 10th in the year 2015 from open school. He lastly submits that statement of Dr. Vatsala Mariyam, Psychiatrist was not properly appreciated. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the impugned order is not sustainable and he prays to allow the petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1/Plaintiff would support the impugned order and would submit that to ascertain the fact of the mental infirmity, the trial Court itself has put certain questions and after evaluating the statement of the Psychiatrist, reached to the conclusion that mother of the next friend, who is the plaintiff herein due to such mental disease or infirmity could not protect her interest in proper and sufficient manner. He would further submit that mental infirmity could be cast for the various reasons, even when a person reached to the advance age. He would further submit that even a brilliant student when suffers from severe depression, is not able to take proper decision during such illness unless properly recovered. He places reliance in the matter of Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh v. Jitender Singh And Others (2007) 14 SCC 765 . In this case, a team of doctors have given an opinion that the condition of Maharaja about recent memory, recall, calculation, writing are impaired. Considering this overall mental state, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Rajasthan High Court to appoint a guardian ad litem for the petitioner therein keeping in view his best interest. Lastly he submits that no case is made out warranting any interference invoking supervisory jurisdiction. He prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 6. Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC clearly stipulates that the Rule 1 to 14 (except Rule 2-A) shall apply to persons of unsound mind. It also governs the Suit by or against a person with mental incapacity and the same reads as under:- “R.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 interests when suing or being sued.” 7. From reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is explicit that the expression, “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”. From reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is explicit that the expression, “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”. In such circumstances, a duty is cast on the Court to arrive at the finding whether on the pleadings or even in the absence of any pleading, when it is brought to the notice of the Court by the evidence on record whether any person is found by the Court, on enquiry to be incapable of protecting his or her interest, when suing or being sued and such duty is mandatory and not discretionary, and the same has also been clarified in the matter of Kasturibai And Others v. Anguri Chaudhary (2003) 3 SCC 225 . 8. In the matter of Kasturibai (supra), the following material was observed at para 11:- “11.On a bare perusal of the said provision, it is evident that the Court is empowered to appoint a guardian in the event a person is adjudged to be of unsound mind. It further provides that even if a person is not so adjudged but is found by the court on inquiry to be incapable of protecting his or her interest when suing or being sued by reason of any mental infirmity, an appropriate order thereunder can be passed. The respondent did not contend that appellant 1 herein is of unsound mind. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondent herself had filed an application before the trial court for holding an inquiry to the effect that she suffers from mental infirmity.” 9. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Plaintiff is not of a unsound mind and therefore, second limb of Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC attracts which empowers the Court to go into each and every question of incapability to protect the interest of a particular person by reason of any mental infirmity which is so wide enough and includes a case of mental retardation, mental ailment or any other mental disorder to the extent of making that person incapable of protecting his/her interest or to take a rational decision, besides a person of unsound mind/insanity/lunacy. 10.The term “mental illness” is defined under Section 2 (s) in exhaustive terms in the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and for the sake of brevity the said definition read thus:- “2(s) “mental illness” means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, mental conditions associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs, but does not include mental retardation which is a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence.” 11.Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the trial Court has properly conducted the enquiry to ascertain the condition of mental infirmity of the mother of the next friend i.e. Plaintiff herein and on the basis of the statement of a Psychiatrist, a finding has been recorded that the mother of the next friend could not properly defend her interest in the present Suit and there is no conflicting interest of the next friend with her mother, so in such circumstances, a permission was accorded under Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC, which is a sound and reasoned order, which does not require any interference invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Resultantly, this Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-