VELLACHI ANIMAL Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER SOUTH ARCOT DIVISION NORTH OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TNEB VILLUPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks permission for the petitioners to file the Appeal SR.No.83501 of 1992 against O.S.No.55 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court, Villupuram as indigent persons. No doubt, the trial court in O.S.No.55 of 1989 has held that the said suit is barred by limitation and hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. Though in the suit the plaintiffs were allowed to sue as indigent persons, they cannot automatically get similar permission in this appeal also. So far as appeals by indigent persons, O.44, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code provides as follows: "Any person entitled to prefer an appeal, who is unable to pay the fee required for the memorandum of appeal, may present an application accompanied by a memorandum of appeal, and may be allowed to appeal as an indigent person subject, in all matters including the presentation of such application, to the provisions relating to suits by indigent persons in so far as those provisions are applicable". So, according to this Rule, the petitioners may be allowed to appeal as indigent persons subject, in all matters, to the provisions relating to suits by indigent persons insofar as those provisions are applicable. So, O.33, Rule 5 also is applicable when permission is sought for to prefer an appeal as an indigent person. O.33, Rule 5(f) says that' "The court shall reject an application for permission to sue as an indigent person where the allegations made by the applicant in the application show that the suit would be barred by any law for the time being in force.

(2.) " No doubt, in considering this petition I should not take into account the decision that has been given by the court below holding that the suit is barred by limitation. But I should take into account only the allegations made by the petitioners originally in their application seeking permission to file the suit as indigent persons. Taking those allegations I find that the suit has been laid to recover compensation from the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, the defendant-respondent for the death of the first petitioner's husband due to electrocution through a live wire of the defendant-respondent. But the said electrocution took place as per these allegations on 9.12.1972 itself, while the suit was filed only on 12.10.1988 i.e., about 14 years after. No doubt, it is narrated in the plaint that after the abovesaid electrocution, there were correspondences between the plaintiffs and the defendant-Electricity Board and that only finally on 31.10.1987 the defendant-Electricity Board refused to entertain the abovesaid compensation claimed. So, according to the plaintiffs, the time begins to run only from 31.10.1987.