MEENAMBAL Vs. SELVI BABY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the first respondent in O.P.No.36 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, has filed the revision against the order of permitting the first respondent herein to file the suit for partition as an indigent person. The first respondent herein has stated in the original ptition filed in support of the petition seeking leave to file the suit as in forma pauperis that she does not possess anypropertyexcepttheutensilsandwearingapparels. The petitioner herein has filed the counter in the said petition stating that the first respondent is earning a monthly income of Rs.1,500 and moreover she has income from side jobs also, and she has also constructed her own house in Mugappair village, which is worth above Rs.3 lakhs and she is also getting a monthly rental income of Rs.500 per month from the house property. Further in the counter it has been stated that the first respondent is residing with one Dhanalakshmi, who is also one of the respondents in the main oiginal ptition and the said Dhanalakshmi is earning a monthly income of Rs.2,000 and as such both of them can join together and pay the court -fees. The first respondent herein had been examined as a witness before the trial court. In the course of the evidence she had stated that she was working in a printing press at Kodambakkam for the past one year and she stopped from going to the said work. In the next sentence she has stated that she is doing the composing work in the press.

(2.) THE trial court after considering the evidence and the materials available on record allowed the petition filed under O.33, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code and permitted the first respondent to file the suit as an indigent person. The petitioner has challenged the order in the present revision. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent in her evidence had admitted that she is working as a composer in the printing press and she may be able to get Rs.350 per month. Further it is contended that the first respondent in her evidence stated that she was working one year prior to the date of giving evidence and so even her version that she was working one year ago is accepted, she ought to have given the details of the monthly income in her petition as she gave her evidence on 20.2.1992 and the one year earlier would come to January, 1991, whereas the original petition had been filed in September, 1989. So, on the date of filing the original petition she was working and getting the salary. This fact has not been disclosed in the original petition filed by the first respondent and on the short ground of suppression of material facts the lower court ought to have rejected the petition for permission to sue as indigent person. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the first respondent in her evidence has categorically stated that she was working in the printing press at Kodambakkam prior to one year and after that that she is not working anywhere and the sentence that she is working in the press as a composer is only mistake and that instead of stating the past -tense the first respondent has used the present tense, which changed the meaning of the sentence and further the amount which alleged to have been suppressed will not come anywhere near the court -fee that has to be paid.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in Rajakumar Bhagwarsaran v. V.P.V.Rajan, (1971)1 M.L.J. 510, has held as follows: