Treatment of People With Physical Infirmities Within Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Must Read

Explained: The Right to be Forgotten in India

Right to Privacy is an essential fundamental right which has been enshrined in the Indian Constitution under Article 21...

How will the New WhatsApp Privacy Policy Affect Us?

On January 4, 2020, the California based tech giant WhatsApp announced its new privacy law. It allows data integration...

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

Follow us

On Tuesday, the Kerala High Court made specific alterations to the application of provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court interpreted the term ‘mental infirmity’ included under the ambit of Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Judgement passed in the case of ‘Mary v Leelamma and Another’

Background on the Case 

Leelamma has speech and hearing impairments, due to which her daughter, Manju filed her suit. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed that she was forced to provide a thumbprint by her sister, Mary. As a result, Mary received a major share of the property. The judgment was passed in favor of Leelamma, after which an appeal was filed by Mary. The Court was asked to adjudge whether the partition deed signed between the parties was valid. 

Leelamma was represented by her next-friend, Manju, who alleged that Mary used the plaintiff’s impairment to obtain her assent. The appellant contended that Leelamma could not be represented by a ‘next-friend’ because she was not of an ‘unsound mind’. Hence, the provisions of Order 32 of the CPC is not applicable. It was contended that the Trial Court had failed to ascertain Leelamma’s soundness of mind. Hence, the appellant argued that the plaint filed was void and could not be entertained. 

The Judgment of the Court 

A bench consisting of Justices SV Bhatti and BK Thomas ruled that people with physical disabilities can file suits through a next-friend. The Court stated that since cognitive skills help the orientation of individuals, the infirmity of the same would necessarily impact their minds. It was noted that a physical impairment which causes difficulty in communication could be viewed as ‘mental infirmity’. Hence, it can be accepted under the purview of Rule 15 of Order 32 of the Code. 

The Court made use of previous judgments to determine the propriety of the next-friend. It was found that an infirmity that leads to difficulty in communicating and perceiving responses can be accepted under the Code. In Leelamma’s case, since she had speech and hearing impairments, there was bound to be communication problems. Therefore, the Court rejected the appellant’s arguments against the appointment of Leelamma’s daughter as a next friend. The Court also concurred with the Trial Court on the question of the validity of the Partition Deed. The partition deed was held to be null and void. It was held that Leelamma was entitled to her lawful share in the property.  

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 

The representation of Leelamma by her daughter Manju is provided by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Order 32 of the Code deals with suits filed by or against Minors and Persons of Unsound Mind. Rule 1 to 14 of the Order provides for all the conditions regarding the matters of appointment of next friend by a minor.

Rule 15, which was the provision in question in the Judgement, is responsible for providing rights to people of unsound mind under the code.

Rule 15 places persons of unsound mind in the same position as minors for the provisions laid down from Rule 1 to Rule 14. According to Rule 15, persons of unsound mind can be represented by a ‘next friend’. The person can be represented while suing or being sued by a third party. The provisions apply not only to people with an unsound mind but also to a weak mind. Physical infirmity also falls under the ambit of ‘unsound mind’, provided it negatively affects communication. In other words, any physical defect hinders the ability of an individual to communicate. 


The Civil Code Procedure provides for representation of parties that are unable to represent themselves in court to eliminate any disparities. Provisions under the Code ensure that there is no miscommunication in the duration of the trial. A section of the Code contains provisions for certain rights for the vulnerable sections of society to place them in the same footing as other sections. Order 32 deals specifically with minors and people of unsound mind. 

The recent Judgment further ensured the rights of the people suffering from infirmities. People with physical infirmities are often treated at a level below than people without such infirmities. However, their infirmities are not treated as seriously as people with an unsound mind. The recent case in the High Court adjudges the infirmities in terms of its consequences. As a result, it provides people with physical infirmities an opportunity to be adequately represented. The judgment ensures that the Court acknowledges the seriousness of infirmities and upholds the legal rights of such individuals. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Benefit of Probation Not Excluded by the Provisions of Mandatory Minimum Sentence Under Section 397 of Ipc

This case concerns the dispute regarding the granting of probation on good conduct to the accused under the age of twenty-one years.   Brief facts of...

Supreme Court Asks for the Centre’s Response on PIL Filed Seeking the Formation of a Media Tribunal

The Supreme Court sought responses from the Press Council of India (PCI), News Broadcasters Association (NBA) on a PIL which sought to set up a media tribunal to tackle issues concerning the media like complaints against media, channels, and networks. Media has become like an unruly horse that has to be tamed to express the plea.

Law Student Asked the Supreme Court To Take Suo Moto Cognizance of the Violent Farmer Protests

A law student of Mumbai University, Ashish Rai has asked the Supreme Court to take Suo Moto Cognizance of the insult to the national flag done by the farmer protests at the Red Fort. In the course of the farmer's tractor rally on Tuesday, some of the protesters unfurled their own flags by entering the premises of the Red Fort.

Farmers Meeting With the Supreme Court Committee Postponed To Jan 29 Due To the Traffic Restrictions

Due to the traffic restrictions after the violent protests broke out on Republic Day, the meeting of farmers with the Supreme Court Committee that was supposed to take place today was postponed to 29th January.

Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Judgment which said Groping without Skin Contact Not Sexual Assault under POCSO

The National Commission for Women (NCW) has challenged the Bombay High Court judgment where it stated that groping a child’s breasts without any ‘skin-to-skin’ contact will not be considered as sexual assault as defined under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Supreme Court Classifying Employees Based on Educational Qualifications for Promotion or Appointment Is Neither Violative of Article 14 nor of Article 16

This case concerns the dispute relating to the classification of employees belonging to the homogenous group based on educational qualifications. Brief facts of the case The...

Supreme Court Refuses To Transfer Petitions To Itself Related To ‘Love Jihad’ Filed in Allahabad High Court

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea which was filed by the UP Government regarding the transfer of all the pleas challenging the ordinance the court passed, from Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench Holds That Groping a Girl Without ‘Skin To Skin’ Contact Is Not Sexual Assault

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court acquitted a man charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and convicted him of a minor offence under IPC stating that there was no direct physical contact.

Delhi High Court Restrains Publication of Book on “the Ryan School Murder”

The Order had come in an injunction application filed by the St. Xavier's Education Trust in Delhi. The Plaintiff sought ad-interim restraining order on...

Supreme Court Closed Proceeding in Case of “in Re: Advocate on Record Includes a Proprietary Firm Etc.”

Brief facts of the case Emails from the Petitioner resulted in an administrative decision. An Order of the Supreme Court has drawn up the issue...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -