JETHU RAM RICE MILL Vs. ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6 February 1995, whereby the objection of the appellant regarding the maintainability of respondent's application under Order 33 Civil Procedure Code has been rejected.

(2.) The respondent herein filed on 17 July 1986 an application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC, for permission to sue as an indigent person. Plaint was annexed with the application. The same was returned by the Registry the following day with the endorsement "petition is not presented in person by petitioner before Joint Registrar(O)". On 7 August 1986, the petitioner in person presented the same before the Deputy Registrar. The petition was placed before the Registrar on 18 August 1986 who directed notice in the application to be issued to the respondents, the appellant herein being one of them. The appellant filed reply and raised objections to the maintainability of the application, in main, on the ground that the application had not been framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rules 2 and 3 of Order 33 Civil Procedure Code and that the suit was barred by law of limitation. According to Rule 2, an application to sue as an indigent person should contain the particulars required in a plaint in a suit, which when allowed is converted into a suit and it was alleged that, that being not the case, it deserved to be rejected.

(3.) It is true that the application itself did not contain the particulars required in the plaint in a suit. Instead the plaint containing all the necessary ingredients, duly verified, was appended with the application. The application was not verified as such but was supported by an affidavit answering the requirement of verification. The schedule of property attached with the application was also verified. On this the learned Single Judge found that the applicant, thus, substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 2 and that at worst, the application could be returned for rectification of technical objection, on which the applicant could have amended the application and filed a duly drawn up application in terms of Rule 2, but this exercise was not warranted on principles of natural justice, as the application had remained pending for nine years and it would be cruel to the applicant if it were returned to undergo that exercise at that stage, particularly when no prejudice had been caused to the objector by this irregularity. The contention of the appellant was thus, repelled. The learned Judge also held that reckoning from the date of intimation of dishonour of the cheque viz., 23 July 1983, for recovery of which amount the suit was sought to be filed as an indigent person, the suit was within time.