R V KANNAN Vs. EID PARRY INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the appellant who appeared in person. Counsel for the respondent is absent.

(2.) THE present appeal is directed against the order passed by the trial court, rejecting the original petition filed by the appellant under Order 33 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. THE appellant had filed the suit for following relief: " (b) to declare that the petitioner/ plaintiff continues in service and consequentially to pass a decree for mandatory injunction directing the respondent/defendant to pay the salaries and other allied payments like perquisites etc. , payable to the petitioner/plaintiff for march 1993 and continue to do so for the ensuing months till the date of his retirement on super-annuation along with interest as may be fixed by this hon'ble Court for the already accrued amount. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE to pass a decree directing the respondent/defendant company to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 9. 5 lakhs;"

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court and allow the application under Order 33 Rules 1 and 2. We direct that the present appellant shall be permitted to sue as an indigent person. .