K GOVINDASWAMY Vs. KAMALAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Pauper O. P. No. 133 of 1965 was instituted by the next friend of one kamalammal. After the filing of the petition by the next friend under Order XXXIII, c. P. C. , Kamalammal became a major. She wanted to continue the application filed by the next friend, and on such an attempt, the respondents in the said pauper original petition filed an application, I. A. No. 25 of 1966, before the learned subordinate Judge, Chingleput, stating that Kamalammal could not continue the said application and that she should file a fresh original petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis under Order XXXIII, C. P. C. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled this objection and dismissed the application. Against this order, the present civil revision has been filed.

(2.) THE petitioners before me are the petitioners who filed the above interlocutory application raising the preliminary objection about the continuance of the original petition in forma pauperis by Kamalammal.

(3.) ORDER XXXIII, under the caption "suits by paupers" provides for various methods and conditions under which a person may institute a suit in forma pauperis. Under O. XXXIII, R. 2. C. P. C. , every application for permission to sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits; a schedule of any moveable or immoveable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimate value thereof, shall be annexed thereto. O. XXXIII, R. 3 provides that the application shall be presented to the Court by the applicant in person, unless he is exempted in accordance with the said rule. Order XXXIII, Rule 4, clause (2)expressly provides for the application being presented by an agent, in which contingency of course, the Court has the discretion to examine the applicant on commission, if it so requires.