ORDER : Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J. Heard Sri Rama Sharana Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner (appeared through video conference) in C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022 and Smt. T.Radha Rani, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in C.R.P.No.331 of 2024. 2. C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022 is filed by the Plaintiff (Petitioner herein) challenging the Order passed by the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Palasa, Srikakulam District, dated 31.03.2022 in I.A.No.109 of 2022 in O.S.No.140 of 2005. This O.S.No.140 of 2005 is filed by the Plaintiff (Petitioner herein) for declaration and for Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to demolish the illegal and unauthorised construction made in the suit schedule property. I.A.No.109 of 2022 is filed by the Petitioner (elder son of the Plaintiff) under Order XXXII Rule 15 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C’) to declare the plaintiff as having unsound mind and permit him to act as guardian of the Plaintiff in the suit. 3. Learned Junior Civil Judge, Palasa, having noted the reasons in detail, was pleased to dismiss the said Application (I.A.No.109 of 2022 in O.S.No.140 of 2005) by Order dated 31.03.2022. This Order is impugned in the present C.R.P. 4. Before adverting to any other discussion, it would be relevant to take into account the facts/history in this suit, as narrated by the Learned Junior Civil Judge in his Order dated 31.03.2022 in I.A.No.109 of 2022 in O.S.No.140 of 2005. 4.1. This Order is impugned in the present C.R.P. 4. Before adverting to any other discussion, it would be relevant to take into account the facts/history in this suit, as narrated by the Learned Junior Civil Judge in his Order dated 31.03.2022 in I.A.No.109 of 2022 in O.S.No.140 of 2005. 4.1. That the Plaintiff had filed the present suit (O.S.140 of 2005) seeking declaration and for Mandatory Injunction with further direction to the Defendants to demolish illegal and unauthorised construction made in the suit schedule property; that the Plaintiff is aged about 79 years (in the year 2022) and she became sick subsequent to the filing of the suit; that the Plaintiff is unable to attend or appear before the Court for giving evidence; that the Plaintiff filed an Application (I.A.No.262 of 2014) seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record her cross-examination, i.e., after filing of her chief-affidavit (in lieu of chief-examination); that all the family members including the husband of the Plaintiff were infected with COVID-19; that the Plaintiff, after recovery of COVID-19 became very sick; that she has suffered mental infirmity and incapable of either attending at any of her physical activities or receiving communications or communicating her wishes or thoughts to others; that the Plaintiff has become a person of unsound mind having lost her mental strength; that the Plaintiff is, therefore, unable to protect her interest in the suit; that the Petitioner, who is the elder son of the Plaintiff, is aware of the entire facts of the case personally, and as such the petitioner is the best person to protect the interest of the Plaintiff. In the above premise, it was prayed to declare the Plaintiff as being a person of unsound mind and permit the Petitioner (elder son of the Plaintiff) to act as guardian of the Plaintiff in the suit and consequently stand for the cross-examination as well. 5. This was stoutly opposed by the defendants (who are the Petitioners in C.R.P.No.331 of 2024). 6. 5. This was stoutly opposed by the defendants (who are the Petitioners in C.R.P.No.331 of 2024). 6. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.2 in I.A.No.109 of 2022 in O.S.No.140 of 2005 contending that the law requires that enquiry must be undertaken by the Court to adjudge a person as having unsound mind; that, then only i.e., after the Court concludes that a particular person is of unsound mind, a Petition under Order XXXII Rule 15 of C.P.C is maintainable; that, in the absence of such material placed by the Petitioner relating to the condition of the Plaintiff before the Court, the present petition is not maintainable; that the Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Court on 18.08.2015 to cross-examine the Plaintiff as P.W.1 at her residence, whereas, the Plaintiff has not come forward for cross-examination before the Advocate Commissioner on one pretext or the other with an intent to avoid the cross-examination and to prolong the case as such; that all of a sudden, the Plaintiff has proposed a new theory of mental illness, but the same is absolutely false; that the medical certificates filed by the Petitioner did not render support to substantiate the contents of the Petition; and that if the Plaintiff is unable to give the evidence because of her condition even at her residence, her husband has to file a Petition before the Court as contemplated under Section 120 of C.P.C, so as to obtain permission and depose on her behalf. 7. Having considered these submissions, the Learned Judge, has taken note of the fact that the Petitioner has filed medical certificates to show the health condition of the Plaintiff. The said medical certificates would indicate that the Doctor has certified that the Plaintiff is suffering from: “Drug Induced Lower Body Parkinsonism, Right Frontal Acute Infarct,? Partially Treatment Pyogenic Meningitis, Diabetic Neuropathy BG HTN, T2DM”. It is also stated in the medical certificate that she cannot attend to the other physical activities and she is not able to communicate properly because of the ailment. 7.1. Learned Judge has noted the contention of the Defendant / Respondent that these grounds were never raised before the Advocate Commissioner, who has been appointed to record her cross-examination. It is also stated in the medical certificate that she cannot attend to the other physical activities and she is not able to communicate properly because of the ailment. 7.1. Learned Judge has noted the contention of the Defendant / Respondent that these grounds were never raised before the Advocate Commissioner, who has been appointed to record her cross-examination. Having noted the same, Learned Judge has observed that the Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Court for recording the crossexamination of the Plaintiff as P.W.1 way back on 18.08.2015 i.e., nearly seven years ago; that the Plaintiff, for the reasons best known to her, did not appear as PW.1 before the Advocate Commissioner; that even though he was appointed at the behest of the Plaintiff, for the last seven years the Plaintiff did not present herself for the cross-examination; that the Advocate Commissioner was appointed several years before COVID-19 pandemic. It is held that while the Plaintiff did not avail the opportunity of being crossexamined since the year 2015 (18.08.2015), after several years, this Application has been filed. It is noted by the Learned Judge that the present Application under Order XXXII Rule 15 of C.P.C shows suspicious attitude on the part of the Plaintiff to stand for test of cross-examination by defence Advocate. 7.2. It is stated by the Learned Judge that having regard to the medical certificates produced by the Petitioner, the Learned Judge has felt it pertinent to direct the Petitioner to produce the Plaintiff before the Court for holding an enquiry with regard to the mental condition of the Plaintiff for the purpose of adjudging whether the Plaintiff is of unsound mind or not, for the purpose of appointing the Petitioner as a guardian for protecting the interest of the Plaintiff in the suit. 7.3. Consequently, the Learned Judge, had directed the Petitioner (elder son of the Plaintiff) to produce the Plaintiff before the Court to conduct enquiry with regard to the mental condition of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was directed to be produced in the afternoon on 31.03.2022. The Plaintiff was produced by her elder son. The Learned Judge has observed the physical condition of the Plaintiff in the presence of both the Advocates. The Learned Judge has put preliminary questions to know the mental condition of the Plaintiff. Learned Judge has noted that the Plaintiff had understood the questions, but could not orally reply. The Plaintiff was produced by her elder son. The Learned Judge has observed the physical condition of the Plaintiff in the presence of both the Advocates. The Learned Judge has put preliminary questions to know the mental condition of the Plaintiff. Learned Judge has noted that the Plaintiff had understood the questions, but could not orally reply. It is stated that the Plaintiff has replied by gestures to the question as to for how many months she has lost her voice. It is stated by the Learned Judge that the Plaintiff has replied by stating that she has lost her voice since three months. For the question whether the Plaintiff has filed any case before the Court, the Plaintiff has made a gesture that she has filed the present suit. Noting these observations, Learned Judge has stated that the physical and mental condition of the Plaintiff is rational in giving answers except by voice. By taking into consideration all the facts of the case, the Learned Judge has observed that the Plaintiff may have been tutored not to speak anything. Relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “9. Plaintiff producing by her elder son, I have observed physical condition of the plaintiff in the presence of both the Advocates. I put preliminary questions to know the mental condition of the plaintiff. The questions put by me were understand by plaintiff, but cannot reply. The plaintiff by sign reply to my question that since how many months she lost her voice. The plaintiff shows that she lost her voice since three months. The plaintiff answered to my question whether she filed any case before the Court. Further, she replied by sign that she filed a case. So, the physical and mental condition of the plaintiff is rational in giving answers except by voice. I further observed that she might have tutored not to speak anything and her demeanor also appeared to be same. Hence, there is no need to appoint a guardian as prayer by the petitioner in this petition.” 8. In that view of the matter, I.A.No.109 of 2022 in O.S.No.140 of 2005 was dismissed by the Learned Judge. Assailing this Order dated 31.03.2022, the C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022 was filed on 06.05.2022. Whereas, this C.R.P was listed for hearing for the first time on 29.08.2022 i.e., four months later. On the said date, Counsel for the Petitioner has sought time. In that view of the matter, I.A.No.109 of 2022 in O.S.No.140 of 2005 was dismissed by the Learned Judge. Assailing this Order dated 31.03.2022, the C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022 was filed on 06.05.2022. Whereas, this C.R.P was listed for hearing for the first time on 29.08.2022 i.e., four months later. On the said date, Counsel for the Petitioner has sought time. When the matter was again listed on 22.02.2023, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Again during the third listing i.e., on 03.05.2023, the Counsel for the petitioner requested and secured an adjournment without making submission in the matter. On 08.05.2023, when it was again listed, it was noted in the Docket Sheet that there is no representation for the petitioner and was directed to be posted on 19.06.2023. Thereafter, the matter never came to be listed since no steps were taken for getting the matter listed. C.R.P.No.331 of 2024: 9. At this stage, the Defendants have filed C.R.P.No.331 of 2024 seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit. In this C.R.P, it is contended by the Petitioners (Defendants) that the proceeding before the Trial Court is nothing but an abuse of process and that even after 18 years after filing of the suit, the Plaintiff is deliberately not coming forward for giving evidence and is not allowing the suit to progress further. The Defendants/Petitioners have contended that the Plaintiff is adopting dilatory tactics. Defendants/Petitioners have contended that while the suit is of the year 2005, even by the year 2015, when the Advocate Commissioner came to be appointed at the behest of the Plaintiff (on 18.08.2015) for the purpose of recording cross-examination at the residence of the Plaintiff, the plaintiff did not deliberately avail the opportunity with an intent to avoid the crossexamination, and that, after seven years, her elder son has filed a Petition under Order XXXII Rule 15 of C.P.C to declare the Plaintiff as a person of unsound mind and to permit him to prosecute the case on behalf of the Plaintiff as guardian. Defendants/Petitioners in C.R.P.No.331 of 2024 would submit that the purpose of filing the said Application (I.A.No.109 of 2022) at such belated stage, without availing the opportunity of being cross-examined in the presence of Advocate Commissioner for seven years, is a gross abuse of process by adopting dilatory tactics. 9.1. Defendants/Petitioners in C.R.P.No.331 of 2024 would submit that the purpose of filing the said Application (I.A.No.109 of 2022) at such belated stage, without availing the opportunity of being cross-examined in the presence of Advocate Commissioner for seven years, is a gross abuse of process by adopting dilatory tactics. 9.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has contended that the Plaintiff has filed the C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022 challenging the Order dated 31.03.2022 in I.A.No.109 of 2022 on 06.05.2022 but the Plaintiff is not prosecuting even the C.R.P on one ground or the other, prolonging the trial of the suit on the ground that the C.R.P (C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022) filed by the Plaintiff is pending since 2022. 9.2. When the C.R.P.No.331 of 2024 come-up before this Court on 21.02.2024, after noting the elementary facts and the pendency of the suit since the year 2005, this Court had undertaken the administrative enquiry as regards the status of the case and the reason for delay. On the administrative side, this Court had called for a Report from Principal District Judge, Srikakulam about the status of O.S.No.140 of 2005. The Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, vide Proceedings dated 24.02.2024 had stated that the suit was being adjourned from time to time as C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022 (filed by the Plaintiff) is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, and therefore, there is no progress in the suit. 9.3. On 06.03.2024, this Court has passed the following Order in C.R.P.No.331 of 2024: “Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Tandasa Radha Rani, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Defendants with a prayer for early disposal of O.S.No.140 of 2005. Having regard to the age of the Suit in as much as the Suit has been filed in the year 2005, on 21.02.2024, this Court has decided to obtain the status of the Suit. An Administrative direction was given to the Principal District Judge to verify and Report about the status of the case. The Learned Principal District Judge has submitted a Report dated 24.02.2024. An Administrative direction was given to the Principal District Judge to verify and Report about the status of the case. The Learned Principal District Judge has submitted a Report dated 24.02.2024. Relevant portion is usefully extracted hereunder: “It is to submit, as per the record in OS No.140/2005, trial in the suit was taken up way back in 2015, and Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to examine the plaintiff on commission, but, so far, plaintiff was not examined, and subsequently on behalf of plaintiff, her son Tangudu Harinayana filed application in IA No.109/2022, under Order 32, Rule 15 of CPC, to permit him to give evidence on behalf of plaintiff, and the same was considered by the Junior Civil Judge, Palasa, and vide order dt. 31.03.2022, the above application was dismissed. The record in OS No.140/2005 discloses, as against orders dt.31.03.2022 in IA No.109/2022, plaintiff Tangudu Sarojini filed CRP No.1643 of 2022 before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and the same is pending for determination, and since then the suit in OS No.140/2005 is being adjourned time to time, as CRP No.1643/2022 is pending before the Honourable High Court, there is no progress in the suit. It is to submit, previously Sri P. Ravi Sankar, was officiating as Junior Civil Judge, Palasa, and subsequently, the Honourable High Court has placed him under suspension w.e.f. 24.04.2023, and the Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali is placed full additional charge of Junior Civil Judge, Palasa, and the In-charge Officer is holding the Court at Palasa on every Friday, and presently he is undergoing training at A.P. Judicial Academy, Mangalagiri.” 3. Having considered this Report, this Court has directed the Court Officer to fetch the Civil Revision Petition No.1643 of 2022, which is pending on the file of this Court. As indicated earlier, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the son of the Plaintiff challenging the Order of Dismissal of Interlocutory Application for giving evidence. The C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022 was listed on four (04) occasions. On three dates out of the four dates there was no representation for the Petitioner. Only on 03.05.2023, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner appeared and took an adjournment. 4. It is clear from the Report submitted by the Learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam that the Junior Civil Judge had been adjourning the matter from time to time only because of the pendency of the C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022. 5. Only on 03.05.2023, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner appeared and took an adjournment. 4. It is clear from the Report submitted by the Learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam that the Junior Civil Judge had been adjourning the matter from time to time only because of the pendency of the C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022. 5. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff is dragging on the matter in the Suit Proceedings by keeping the C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022 pending. As it is noticed that out of four (04) dates, atleast on three (03) dates, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not appear before this Court. 6. Since, the prayer in the present C.R.P.No.331 of 2024, as sought by the Defendants, is for early disposal of the Suit, this Court is of the opinion that both the Civil Revision Petitions can be tagged together and be heard for giving finality one way or the other. 7. In this view of the matter, Registry is directed to place these two Civil Revision Petitions i.e., C.R.P.Nos.331 of 2024 and 1643 of 2022 before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for allocation of the Bench.” 9.4. By the direction of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, both the C.R.Ps (C.R.P.Nos.1643 of 2022 & 331 of 2024) were tagged together and have come-up for hearing. DISCUSSION: 10. This Court has minutely gone through the pleadings in both the C.R.Ps. This Court has also sifted through the Impugned Order dated 31.03.2022 in I.A.No.109 of 2022 in O.S.No.140 of 2005 passed by the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Palasa. This Court has noticed that while the suit was filed in the year 2005, P.W.1 (the Plaintiff) has filed the Chief-Affidavit, and thereafter, filed an Application in the year 2014 (vide I.A.No.262 of 2014) for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and for the cross-examination of the Plaintiff in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner. It is also noticed that vide Order dated 18.08.2015, the trial Court has allowed the Application (I.A.No.262 of 2014) and appointed the Advocate Commissioner for recording the cross-examination of the Plaintiff as P.W.1 at her residence. It is also seen that the Advocate Commissioner, though was appointed in the year 2015 at the behest of the Plaintiff, she has not availed such opportunity for half-adecade even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also seen that the Advocate Commissioner, though was appointed in the year 2015 at the behest of the Plaintiff, she has not availed such opportunity for half-adecade even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is clearly noticed from the Impugned Order that the Learned Judge has objectively examined the request of the Petitioner under Order XXXII Rule 15 of C.P.C after taking note of the medical certificates, and had directed the Plaintiff to appear before the Court on 31.03.2022 in person. It is also noted that upon such appearance, the Learned Judge has posed several questions to understand and assess the physical and mental condition of the Plaintiff. The Learned Judge has recorded that the Plaintiff was able to coherently answer the questions by signs and gestures. Learned Judge has also noted a suspicion that the Plaintiff might have been tutored not to speak nor to reply orally to the questions posed by the Court. It is also stated in the impugned order that the Learned Judge has observed her (Plaintiff’s) demeanor also. 10.1. Having noted the conduct of the Plaintiff since the year 2005, and thereafter, as regards the appointment of Advocate Commissioner on 18.08.2015 and not availing the given opportunity even for seven long years (till the date of filing I.A.No.109 of 2022 under Order XXXII, Rule 15 of C.P.C) for the reasons best known to her, and, presently making-out a new case of unsound mind, the Learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the Application. 10.2. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners (in C.R.P.No.331 of 2024) has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Docket Proceedings (filed vide Memo dated 23.07.2024). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has demonstrated by filing the statement of various docket orders by way of Memo dated 23.07.2024. The Docket Orders would indicate that from date of appointment of the Advocate Commissioner (18.08.2015) upto the break-out of the COVID-19 pandemic in India i.e., from 5th March, 2020, the Plaintiff had taken about 111 adjournments for various reasons including ‘a proposal for compromise’ (10 adjournments). 10.3. After noticing all the facts, this Court is of the view that there is gargantuan delay in the progress of this suit and it is attributable to the plaintiff itself since the year 2005. Therefore, the delay caused by the Plaintiff cannot enure to the disadvantage of the Defendants. 10.3. After noticing all the facts, this Court is of the view that there is gargantuan delay in the progress of this suit and it is attributable to the plaintiff itself since the year 2005. Therefore, the delay caused by the Plaintiff cannot enure to the disadvantage of the Defendants. In the present case, the Plaintiff delayed the cross-examination on one pretext or the other right from 18.08.2015 despite the fact that the age of the suit itself had surpassed a decade by the year 2015. This Court has taken judicial note of the fact that it is natural that the health condition of humans would deteriorate by advancing of age. Therefore, the Plaintiff, at old age ought to have been more vigilant and diligent in completing her part of evidence at the earliest. It is a writing on the wall that in present case, the Plaintiff had dragged her feet without stepping into the witness-box for cross-examination from 18.08.2015 even upto 15.03.2020 which is the time during which the COVID-19 pandemic had broken-out in India. While, this being the conduct of the Plaintiff, the Petitioner (son of the Plaintiff) cannot now raise the plea that the health condition of the Plaintiff had drastically changed on account of being affected with COVID-19 etc.. As the years pass by, the health condition of any human being would be subject to downward changes and would not improve in the natural process and the Plaintiff is, rather, not an exception for the aging process. Therefore, any disadvantage that the Plaintiff would be visited with, this Court categorically holds that it is solely on account of the conduct of the Plaintiff herself, for which, no sympathy can be shown by this Court, much less any indulgence, while dealing with the suit of the year 2005. 10.4. “Make the hay when the sun shines” is the age-old and timetested proverb. The truth involved in this proverb would apply to all cases, where trial is mandatory. The Plaintiff, having filed the suit in the year 2005 had her own reasons to scuttle the proceedings successfully for more than 19 years, till date. This Court cannot be oblivious to the misery and suffering which the defendant/defendants would have been put to, besides several disadvantages which may have set-in by sheer efflux of time. The Plaintiff, having filed the suit in the year 2005 had her own reasons to scuttle the proceedings successfully for more than 19 years, till date. This Court cannot be oblivious to the misery and suffering which the defendant/defendants would have been put to, besides several disadvantages which may have set-in by sheer efflux of time. Over such period of time, the persons who were earlier capable of rendering such evidence stoutly and robustly would be losing their physical and mental abilities, which is an ‘inescapable natural process’. If the Plaintiff has taken nearly 19 years to give oral evidence, this has automatically delayed the evidence from the side of the defendant too and the persons who were capable of rendering qualitative evidence from the side of the defendant too would have also lost their abilities and diminished in their physical and mental faculties, that may enure to the disadvantage of the defendants and such a situation may be an advantage to the Plaintiffs. Procrastination of a suit for fairly long time by one party, automatically and typically carries with it myriad baneful effects, which might be detrimental to the other party, and this could be a part of a sinister design and strategy too. 11. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the Plaintiff does not deserve any indulgence from this Court. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022 is dismissed as being not only devoid of any merit, but it is also an abuse of the process. Having regard to the number of adjournments which have happened at the behest of the Plaintiff, while dismissing C.R.P.No.1643 of 2022, this Court is inclined to impose Exemplary Costs, quantified at Rs.50,000/- and it is so ordered. Out of this amount, the Plaintiff shall pay Rs.25,000/- to the Defendants/Petitioners in C.R.P.No.331 of 2024. The balance of Rs.25,000/- of Costs shall be paid by the Plaintiff in favour of the Bar Association, Palasa, Srikakulam District (Registration No.282/2018). The President of the Bar Association, Palasa, Srikakulam District (Registration No.282/2018) is directed to buy ‘Law Books’ for the said amount and add them to the Association’s Library. Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the President of the Bar Association, Palasa (Registration No.282/2018) for compliance. 12. The President of the Bar Association, Palasa, Srikakulam District (Registration No.282/2018) is directed to buy ‘Law Books’ for the said amount and add them to the Association’s Library. Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the President of the Bar Association, Palasa (Registration No.282/2018) for compliance. 12. There shall be a direction to the Junior Civil Judge, Palasa to provide one opportunity to the Plaintiff to be cross-examined in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner at the residence of Plaintiff on day-to-day basis and complete the same within two (02) weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on the website of this Court. Thereafter, recording of the defendants’ evidence, if any, shall be completed within three weeks thereafter. There shall be further direction to dispose of the suit within 12 weeks from the date of completion of the defendants’ evidence. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.331 of 2024 stands allowed. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall proceed with the suit on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. 14. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of this order.