PAREKH RAMNIKLAL GORDHANDAS Vs. JAISWAL MATHURLAL SHANKERLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order against which this revision. application has been filed is an order rejecting an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis on two grounds:- (1) that under Order 33 Rule 5 cl. (a) and (d) Civil Procedure Code where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by rules 2 and 3 and (2) that the allegations do not show a cause of action. The second argument is unsound because the learned Judge has held that the plaint does not show a cause of action. Order 7 Rule 11 C. P. Code shows that a distinction is made between failure to show a cause of action and bar of limitation or of any other law. The two ideas are quite distinct. It is contended that on the date of the suit there must be a subsisting cause of action and reliance is placed on H. Pascal v. Secretary of State A. I. R. 19R4 Rangoon. 111. The bar of limitation does not destroy the cause of action if any but only bars the remedy. The two ideas are distinct as seen from Order 7 Rule 11 C. P. Code. The learned Judge 15 therefore wrong in holding that the suit does not show a cause of action because it is time barred. He does not give any other reason for holding that the plaint does not show a cause of action.

(2.) 2. But on the other point the learned Judge is right because Order 33 Rule 5 C. P. Code provides that the Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by rules 2 and 3. Rules 2 and 3 read as follows:-

(3.) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the application shall be presented to the Court by the applicant in person unless he is exempted from appearing in Court in which case the application may be presented by an authorized agent who can answer all material questions relating to the application and who may be examined in the same manner as the party represented by him might have been examined had such party attended in person."