UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. KHADER INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point for decision in this appeal is whether the first respondent, a limited company ("respondent" for short), is entitled to sue as an indigent person under O. XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are thus. The respondent filed a suit before the Sub-Court, Kochi, and sought permission to sue as an indigent person. The appellant herein raised objections and contended that the plaintiff being a public limited company was not a 'person' coming within the purview of Or. XXXIII, R. 1, C. P. C., and the word 'person' referred to therein applies only to a natural person and not to other juristic persons. The Subordinate Judge permitted the respondent-plaintiff to sue as an indigent person. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a Revision and the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge of the High Court and that judgment of the High Court is assailed in this appeal.

(3.) We heard Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. T. L. Vishwanatha Iyer, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that under O. XXXIII, R. 1, an Explanation has been given as to who shall be an 'indigent person'and it was pointed out that an 'indigent person' is one who is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit; or where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the subject-matter of the suit. It was further pointed out that prior to the amendment of Rule 1 of Order XXXIII, C. P. C., an 'indigent person' was mentioned in the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XXXIII as a person who is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject-matter of the suit, and this according to the appellant's counsel, indicated the 'person' mentioned in Rule 1 of Order XXXIII which refers only to natural person and not other juridical person. It was also submitted by the appellant's counsel that under Rule 3 of Order XXXIII, the application to sue as an indigent person shall be presented to the Court by the applicant in person unless he is exempted from appearing in Court in which case the application may be presented by an authorised agent. According to the appellant's counsel, a public limited company being a juristic person cannot present an application in accordance with Rule 3 of Order XXXIII. It was submitted that under Rule 3, the person who is presenting the application must be such person who can answer all material questions relating to the application and therefore, the scheme of Order XXXIII of the C. P. C. envisages only a natural person to file a suit as an indigent person.