CHEMICAL AND PLASTICS INDIA LTD Vs. KARISIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd defendant is the revision petitioner herein. Respondents 1 and 2 O.P.No.280 of 1988, out of which this revision arises, for permitting them to sue as indigent persons. THE said original petition was allowed and against the >said decision, this revision petition has been filed by the 2nd defendant/2nd respondent in the original petition.

(2.) IN the original petition, the Government did not file any counter or any report, stating the O.P. petitioners have any property. No doubt, the contention of the revision petitioner the original petition is that the O.P. petitioners have got properties, but that the said fact been suppressed. Even assuming it to the true, the >revision petitioner cannot be called aggrieved party against the order that has been passed. It has also been held in Servai v. Govindaswami Servai, (1960)2 M.L.J. 313, that the true principle in all cases granting leave to sue in forma pauperis is that it is primarily for the State to challenge correctness of such orders as it is the State which is mainly interested in the payment Court-fee and that the High Court will not normally interfere in revision against such at the instance of the parties to the dispute. IN the said case, the State actually objections and yet this Court declined to interfere in the revision petition filed by defendant.