R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) SINCE the learned members of the Bar are abstaining from work, Smt. Sunita, the petitioner has appeared before this Court to argue the case.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.7.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (SD) No. 1, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed an application filed under Section 10 CPC by the petitioner. Smt. Sunita has pleaded that initially one Atar Singh, the respondent No. 2 had filed a suit against her for permanent injunction. However, subsequently he filed an application before the learned trial court claiming that since he is mentally challenged, he is unable to pursue the civil suit. Therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw the civil suit. The said application was accepted and by order dated 10.4.2009, the civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn. But subsequently he moved an another civil suit through next friend against the petitioner, which has been registered as Civil Suit No. 108/2009. In the said civil suit, the petitioner had moved an application wherein she had pleaded that in fact, Atar Singh is not mentally challenged, as he has appeared as witness in other legal proceedings. He has and does operate bank account. Therefore, the stand being taken by the respondent No. 2, Atar Singh, that he is mentally challenged is merely a bluff. According to Smt. Sunita since the testimonies of Atar Singh and copies of his bank account were submitted before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate has erred in dismissing her application. Therefore, the impugned order dated 5.7.2013 should be interfered with.
(3.) HEARD the petitioner and perused the impugned order.;