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

Must Read

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

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

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -