THAVANELIMMAL MANNI Vs. OTTALAVUNKAL THAMASIKKUM ANERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against an order made under O.33, R.5 of the C.P.C. rejecting an application presented by the defendant in the suit seeking permission to file the appeal as an indigent person. The application was presented by the defendant in person on 24-6-1982. It was returned for representation on 25-6-1982. It was represented on that day by the defendant in person. The application was, however, returned saying that the decree had not been properly drawn up to include the schedule of properties. Time for that purpose was granted by a week. On 2-7-1982 the applicant sought extension of time. Time was extended by another week. On 12-7-1982 further extension of time was sought. The application for permission to file the appeal in forma pauperis was dismissed on the ground that it was not presented by the applicant herself in person.

(2.) Order 33, R.3 requires the presence of the applicant in person, or, with the consent of the Court, by an authorised agent, for the purpose of answering questions on the merits of the application. The applicant or the authorised agent has therefore to submit himself to an examination by the Court. R.2 says the application has to contain certain particulars. R.5 says the Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as an indigent person where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rr.2 and 3.

(3.) The application, as originally presented in person by the applicant, was liable to be rejected as it did not contain the particulars required by R.2. But it was not rejected. Time was granted for presenting a proper application. The request for extension of time was not to present the application, but to seek further time to present the application. For that purpose personal appearance of the applicant was unnecessary because she did not have to be examined. If the Court had rejected the request for time, that would have been a valid order under R.5, because the application was not presented in compliance with R.2. The Court rejected the request for extension of time on the ground that the applicant was not present in person. In other words, the application was rejected for the wrong reason.