JOSEPH Vs. JESS RAPHAEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioners are the respondents in OP 13 of 1984 of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. OP was filed under O. 33 R. 1 cpc for instituting the suit in forma pauperis. The Sub Judge allowed the petition holding that the respondents (petitioners in the OP) are not having any assets for being converted into liquid cash for paying the court fee of Rs. 59,980/ -. The challenge against the order is that the Court has not waited for the Government Pleader's report regarding the means of the respondents and erred in allowing the application.

(2.) SHOULD the court wait for the Government Pleader's report to decide whether the petition under 0. 33 R. 1 has to be allowed or not? is it necessary for the court to compel the Government Pleader to cause the filing of the report with regard to the means of the respondents to pay the court fees for the plaint? Or is it not open to the Court to consider the evidence before it as adduced by the contesting parties to decide whether the respondents are having sufficient means to pay the court fee?. These are the moot points to be considered in the CRP.

(3.) EVEN in a case where an application under 0. 33 R. 1 has been admitted it would be open to the Government Pleader to seek for the dispaupering of the plaintiff. O. 33 R. 9 provides that the Court may, on the application of the defendant or of the Government Pleader, of which seven days' clear notice is writing has been given to the plaintiff, order him to be dispaupered if he is guilty of vexatious or improper conduct in the course of the suit or if it appears that he ought not to continue as an indigent person or if he has entered into any agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the suit under which any other person has obtained an interest in such subject matter. R. 9 is sufficient indication to hold that the Court need not wait for the Government Pleader's report before making the decision on the application under 0. 33 R. 1. EVEN if the Government Pleader is not able to submit the report in time it is always possible for the State to take steps to dispauper the plaintiff if it is found later that his means are such that he ought not to continue to sue as an indigent person, Thus the position is that the order allowing or rejecting the application to sue as an indigent person does not suffer from any infirmity merely because the Court had no occasion to consider the Government Pleader's report.