SUNIL KUMAR Vs. BABULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri A. N. Bhargava, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-applicant.

(2.) THIS civil revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called the Code), is directed against the order and judgment dated 26th August, 1989 passed by the Civil Judge, Jhansi rejecting the application of the applicant praying for withdrawal of the permission granted to the plaintiff-opposite parties No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to sue as indigent persons under Order XXXIII of the Code vide order dated 14th February, 1986.

(3.) THE applicant, having participated in the proceedings through his counsel appointed by his father and natural guardian, is estopped from challenging the permission granted to the plaintiff-opposite parties to sue as indigent persons on wholly untenable ground trial he could not oppose the prayer of the plaintiff-opposite parties for grant of leave to institute the suit as indigent persons because of his minority. Participation of the counsel appointed on his behalf by his father and natural guardian will be deemed to be participation of the applicant. In fact, the applicant is bound by the acts of his counsel and, in the absence of any fraud, misrepresentation or any like circumstance he cannot be permitted to repudiate the same. Moreover the question whether a person should be allowed to institute a suit as an indigent person is, basically, related to the payment of court fees with which the State Government alone is concerned. In the instant case, the order dated 14th February, 1986 granting permission to the plaintiff-opposite parties to sue as indigent persons does not appear to have been challenged by any party includ ing the State Government.