K V ANANTHANARAYANAN Vs. K G RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS C.R.P. is by defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The suit is for damages to the Rs.2,00,000 claimed against the said defendants-petitioners who are doctors who operation on the plaintiff-respondent, an advocate on the ground that the operation has done wrongly by the said doctors. But, on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent indigent person O.P.No.282 of 1988 has been filed seeking permission of the court to an indigent person. The said O.P. has been allowed by order dated 1.8.1990. Aggrieved the said order, the defendants have preferred this C.R.P. The court below has come conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent is an indigent person on the ground that as per 2 partition deed, the plaintiff got only a life interest in the property given under partition deed. But, after perusal of Ex.B-2,1 find that apart from the said life interest, also got another property absolutely, under the partition deed, i.e., C schedule property Ex.B-2; (the other life-interest-property is the third item in E Schedule to the said deed). The plaintiff did not disclose in the O.P. either about the abovesaid absolute interest the said E schedule or atleast about the life interest in the said E schedule. It is settled that utmost good faith is expected in filing the petition seeking permission to sue as person; vide Rajkumar Bhagatesaran v. V.P.V.Rajan and others, (1971)1 M.L.J. 510 Further it has also been held in N.N.Raju v. R.C.Appanna, A.I.R. 1977 A.P. 15, when there is failure to disclose life interest in a property, the O.P. should be dismissed.

(2.) FURTHER, it is strange that despite the mandatory provision in O.33, Rule 6, C.P.C., notice was given to the Government Pleader when the O.P. came up for hearing.