M SIVAKUMAR DIED Vs. RAJAPALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is listed today for admission and I heard the counsel for the appellants and perused the materials available on record.

(2.) THE appellants have come forward with this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2011 made in P.O.P. No. 42 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, by which the Original Petition filed by them was dismissed by the Court below.

(3.) AT the time of admission of this appeal, this Court specifically asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellants are carrying on jewellery business and if so whether there is any justification to permit them to sue the Original Petition as pauper merely because their father, original Petitioner Sivakumar, sought such a relief before the Court below, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the appellants are carrying on jewellery business and they will be in a position to pay the entire court fee. That apart, from the records, it is seen that the present appellants did not file any application separately to treat them as informa pauperis but they only filed an application to implead themselves as legal heirs of the original petitioner Sivakumar, who sought permission to prosecute the Original Petition as pauper. Even in the application seeking to implead themselves as legal heirs, it was not stated by the appellants that they are not in a position to pay the court fee and therefore they cannot be permitted to sue the Original Petition as pauper. Further, the appellants have also not taken any notice to the District Collector to confirm their status as pauper, as required under Law. Even in the evidence of PW1, who is the fourth appellant herein, he has admitted that he had purchased a commercial building in Cuddalore and carrying jewellery business thereon.