MUNNU Vs. SCAT SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party filed an application under Order XXXHI, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code for permission to sue as a pauper. She also attached a separate plaint to her pauper application claiming par tition of a house and a shop valuing her share at Rs. 26, 000/- and odd. This application was contested by the present petitioners be fore the lower court on the ground mainly that the opposite party was not pauper. The lower court found that she was a pauper and allowed her to sue as pauper. It is against this order that this revision has been filed.

(2.) THE main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the appli cation for permission to sue as a pauper under order XXXIII, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code should have been rejected by the lower court under Rule 5, of Order XXXIII, Civil Procedure Code as it was not framed in ac cordance with Rule 2 of Order XXXIII, Civil Procedure Code. Rule 2, it is pointed out, provides that an application for permission. to sue as a pauper shall contain the particu lars required in regard to plaints in suits, a schedule of any moveable or immovable pro perty belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof, shall be annexed thereto and it shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings. The argument is that the application for permission to sue neither contained the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits nor any schedule of immovable property belonging to the appli cant. Reference is also made to Rule 8 of Order XXXIII, Civil Procedure Code which provides that where the application is grant ed, it shall be numbered and registered and shall be deemed to be the plaint in the suit and the suit shall proceed in all other res pects as a suit instituted in the ordinary man ner. The argument proceeds that the parti culars in regard to the plaint not having been mentioned in the application for per mission to sue, it could not be converted into a plaint as required by Rule 8 of O. XXXIII, Civil Procedure Code and therefore, the ap plication being defective, the court had no option but to reject the application for per mission to sue under R. 5 (a) of O. XXXIII, Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) IN Ravji Patil v. Sakha Ram, (1884) ILR 8 Bom 615 on the presentation of a plaint it appeared that the plaint was not properly stamped. The plaintiff moved an application for permission to prosecute the suit in forma pauperis. The point was raised that the application not being in proper form was liable to be rejected. The objection was rejected and it was observed that the court may allow a suit to be continued as well it may allow one to be brought originally in forma pauperis and it is not unusual for a man who begins a suit quite solvent to be reduced to insolvency before it is finished.