A V BALAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TRICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question we have to consider in this miscellaneous petition is whether the petitioner can claim to be a pauper under O.33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Apparently, O.33 applies only to suits. The Supreme Court has said in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj ( AIR 1963 SC 946 ) that the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue a writ under Art.226 of the Constitution is original jurisdiction as distinguished from the appellate or revisional jurisdiction and that it may be described as extraordinary original jurisdiction. In another decision, viz., Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India ( AIR 1961 SC 532 ), the Supreme Court has said that the proceedings under Art.226 are not suits. It is thus clear beyond doubt that O.33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which applies only to suits, cannot apply to proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution, which are not suits.

(2.) Mr. M. S. Kurien, the counsel of the petitioner, has brought to our notice the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Krishnalal Sadhu v. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1967 Cal. 275 ), where a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that O.22 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to proceedings under Art.226. The correctness of this decision need not be considered by us in this case, because what we have to consider here is only whether O.33 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(3.) We have also a Division Bench decision of our High Court in Raghavan v. The Government of Kerala (C. M. P. No. 11141 of 1970), where the learned Judges have said that O.33 and 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to writ petitions and appeals therefrom.