PARSHOTTAM PARBHUDAS Vs. BAI MOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant filed an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The suit was for declaration that he was the sole owner of two fields and bungalow and for possession of the bungalow and for the recovery of rent. He was held not to be a pauper and his application to sue in forma pauperis was rejected by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Ahmedabad and hence this revision application.

(2.) The learned Judge held that the two suit fields were in the possession of the applicant. While considering the means of the applicant he considered these two fields and held that it was not proved that the applicant is a pauper or that he has no sufficient means to pay the court-fees for the suit. Secondly he also held that in the previous litigation between the same parties namely Civil Suit No. 1328/58 of the Court of the 6th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Ahmedabad it was decided that the wife of the applicant was the sole owner and that she recovered the possession of the two fields irons the applicant in respect of the suit property and that therefore the applicant had no prima facie case or a cause of action. On these two grounds the learned Judge dismissed the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis.

(3.) In revision it is contended that the two fields in question being a part of the subject matter of the suit should have been excluded when determining the question whether the applicant was a pauper in view of the addition made by the Bombay High Court to the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XXXIII C. P. Code. Order XXXIII Rule 1 and the Explanation to it read as follows :-