DODDANANJAPPA Vs. SUB REGISTRAR HOSKOTE BANGLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24-3-2001 passed in P. Misc. No. 5/97 since their request to permit them to sue as paupers, has been turned down by the learned Prl. Civiljudge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore rural District, Bangalore.

(2.) IT is the case of the appellants that except the suit schedule property, they are not having any property worth Rs. l,000/-either movable or immovable, including wearing apparel, and even they could not raise loan on the security of the suit property for the purpose of paying Court fee and hence, sought permission to sue as paupers. However, the respondents disputed the said claim on the ground that the appellants have suppressed material facts and the properties held by them, though they have several properties in and around Yelachahalli village besides house properties and, even otherwise, the petition filed by appellants is not in conformity with Order Rule 2 of cpc and against the mandatory provisions contained in CPC and consequently, they requested to refuse the relief. The appellants examined one of them whereas, respondents have examined the second respondent and got marked 10 documents in support of their case. However, after hearing, the learned civil Judge turned down the request of the appellants.

(3.) HEARD both sides. It is submitted for appellants that the trial Court was wrong in refusing the permission whereas, it is argued for the respondents that the appellants have suppressed the fact of possessing properties and hence, permission was rightly refused. Perused the record carefully.