V SREEDHARAN Vs. T T NANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant herein filed an application before the court below for permission to sue as an indigent person. Application was opposed by the second respondent, who contended that appellant has means to pay court fee and that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that court and therefore the court has no jurisdiction. The court below upheld the latter contention and rejected the application for "presentation before proper court", though it was satisfied that the appellant is an indigent person. This order is now challenged.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the court below contravened the scheme underlining the provisions of O.33 of the CPC and that an application can be rejected only for reasons mentioned in R.5. Rule S does not contemplate rejection of an application on account of lack of jurisdiction of the court. Learned counsel further contended that consideration of the question of jurisdiction would arise only after the application is registered as a plaint. Counsel placed reliance on the decision in Nur Muhammad v. Maulvi Jamil Ahmad (52 IC 688), where it was observed:

(3.) Learned counsel for the contesting respondent rebutted these contentions. According to him. R.5 of O.33 CPC. is not exhaustive of the circumstances under which an application under O.33 could be rejected. That application could be rejected on other grounds. Learned counsel also contended that by virtue of S.141 C.P.C. provisions of O.7 are rendered applicable to an application under O.33 and therefore rejection or return could be justified under R.10 of O.7 CPC Learned counsel also placed reliance on a number of decisions.