- (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 11-8-2000 passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in MCC. No. 482 of 1999 whereby and whereunder it refused to entertain an application filed by the appellants herein purporting to be under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short C.P.C.) for recalling of an order passed by a learned single Judge of the said Court dated 5-5-1999 passed in Civil Revision No. 2761 of 1998 which in turn arose out of an order dated 3-11-1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1993 dismissing an application filed by the respondent herein under O. 32, R. 15, C.P.C.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the appellants herein for partition of certain immovable properties. The appellant No. 1 herein at the relevant point of time was aged 87. Alleging inter alia that she had lost her ability to understand and further is not capable to give instructions to her lawyer or anybody else relating to the said suit, a prayer was made by the respondent herein in that she be summoned in the Court so as to enable the Court to inquire about her state of mind and upon medical examination, if necessary, a guardian be appointed for defending her in the suit.
(3.) The learned trial Judge by reason of the order dated 3-11-1998 dismissed the said application stating ". . . . . . . .But in the verification para of her affidavit Anguri Chaudhary has verified paras 1-3 and 4 of the affidavit on the basis of her personal knowledge and para 2 on the basis of knowledge received from her relations and known persons. But Anguri Chaudhary has neither mentioned the names of her relations and known persons nor disclosed the time and place of receiving the knowledge from them. No explanation has been given for inordinate delay of 49 months in bringing the fact of forged signature of Kasturibai on her written statement filed on 31-8-1994. In this case Kasturibai is defendant No. 1 but in I.A.No. 17 and affidavit in support she has been referred as "defendant No. 3" and, "defendant No. 3 Kasturibai." The affidavit of Anguribai filed in support of IA. No. 17 is not reliable in these circumstances. Therefore, IA. No. 17 is dismissed." ;