BRIJ RAJ SINGH Vs. NAGAR PALIKA BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Banerji, J. This revision by the plaintiff-applicant is directed against the order dated 9-4-1993 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Basti by which the said court dispaupered the plaintiff-applicant under Order XXXIII Rule 9, C. P. C. and directed to pay court-fees on the valuation of the Suit.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money alongwith interest against the defendants, Alongwith the suit an application for permission to file the suit in forma pauperis was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the amount of court-fees payable on the valuation of the suit given in the plaint was over Rs. 50,000 and the plaintiff did not have the means to pay the court-tees. The trial court allowed the plaintiff's application and the trial of the Suit proceeded. Subsequently the opposite party No. 1 filed an application (Paper No. 49-C) on 20-1-1992 for withdrawal of the permission granted to the plaintiff to sue as an indingent person on the ground that during the pendency of the Suit a Notional Saving Certificate of Rs. 25,000 deposited by the plaintiff as security in the Nagarpalika, Sasti had matured and the court had vide its order dated 44-1991 directed the plaintiff to receive the said amount. The plaintiff-applicant filed objections to the said application. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties the trial court vide its order dated 9-4-1993 allowed the defendants' application (paper No. 49-C) and withdrew the permission granted to the plaintiff to continue the suit as a pauper and directed the plaintiff to deposit the entire court fees by 11-5-1993. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the plaintiff-applicant has filed the present revision before this Court.

(3.) SO far as the first submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, the trial court gave a finding that at the time when the permission was granted to the plaintiff to file the Suit as indigent person it was found that the plaintiff had property worth only Rs. 36,000 whereas the court-fee payable was Rs. 5,600 and, therefore, permission was granted to file the Suit as an indigent person. However, subsequently on maturing of the Na tional Saving Certificate deposited by the plaintiff it was found that the plaintiff has earned interest of Rs. 25,000 and, therefore, had means to pay the court- fees. This finding is essentially a finding of fact. Besides, for determining the question of means what has to be seen is whether the plaintiff had acquired certain funds from which he could pay the court-fees, it is not material that the amount which was received by the plaintiff during the trial of the Suit has since been expended by the plaintiff.