MYSORE SILK FILATURES LTD Vs. USMANKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, dt. 17-2-78 of the I Addl. Civil Judge, Kolar, in P. Misc. Case No. 55 of 1977, allowing the application made by the respondent under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of C.P,C. to sue as an indigent person. In P. Misc. Case No. 55 of 1977 as also in the suit, the petitioner public limited company has been sued twice in the same capacity, firstly being represented by the Managing Director and secondly being represented by its Chairman which was wholly unnecessary. In this view, the Company represented by its Managing Director has sought to revise the order of the court below as the sole petitioner which is in order.

(2.) On or about 18-6-1977 the respondent instituted a suit in the court of the First Addl. Civil Judge, Kolar, against the petitioner claiming, a sum of Rs- 4,00,000 being the damages and refund of amounts paid or deposited by him. On the plaint filed by him the respondent had to pay a court fee of Rs. 30,000 which he did not pay, but made an application along with the plaint on the same day under Order XXXIII Rule 1 C.P.C. to sue as an indigent person. In his application the respondent averred that he had invested all his monies in the filature mills of the petitioner and had incurred heavy loss and he had no other moveables other than those mentioned in the schedule to his application, In the schedule the respondent stated that he was in possession of 6 (old) round cane chairs, 4(old) wooden chairs, 4(old) cane sofas and 1 wooden table valued about Rs. 200, and utensils and household articles valued at Rs. 500. He therefore asserted that he was unable to pay heavy court fee on the claim made by him which was legally and justly due by the petitioner. The application filed by the respondent was resisted by the petitioner and the Government through its Government Pleader. The petitioner denied the allegation of the respondent that he was an indigent person. The petitioner asserted that the respondent had a major share in Aman Silk Mills of Sidlaghatta and possessed moveable and immoveable properties in Andhra State. It also contended that the suit filed by the respondent was a speculative suit. Apart from these, the petitioner also raised certain technical contentions that are not very necessary to set out in detail. The Government through the Goverement Pleader also denied the claim of the respondent that he was an indigent person and urged that he had sufficient means to pay the requisite court fee on the plaint. In support of his case, the respondent examined himself and another witness, while the petitioner examined its Managing Director K. Jayarao. On a consideration of the evidence placed by the parties, the learned Civil Judge concluded that the respondent was an indigent person and therefore allowed his application, the correctness of which is challenged by the petitioner in this revision petition.

(3.) Sri M. R. Achar, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the order of the learned Civil Judge on various grounds that will be noticed by me and dealt separately. Sri S. K. Venkataranga.Iyengar, learned counsel for the respondent, at the threshold urged that when leave has been granted by the trial court to sue as an indigent person, a private party like the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order under S. 115 C.P.C. and therefore the revision petition should be dismissed in limine without examining the merits of the contention urged by the petitioner. In support of his contention Sri S. K. Venkataranga lyengar strongly relied on the ruling of the Muktadar, J., in K. Laxamma v. N. Yadagiri Rao (AIR. 1972 AP. 240). Sri Achar refuted the contention of Sri Venkataranga lyengar and urged that the petitiouer who is the defendant in the suit and who is the respondent to the application made by the respondent, has a right to maintain the revision petition and challenge the validity of the order. In support of his contention Sri Achar strongly relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur (AIR. 1972 SC. 23~79). As the objection raised by Sri Venkataranga lyengar goes to the very root of the matter, I propose to examine this contention.