LAWS(ALL)-1957-4-23

FAKRUDDIN Vs. IQBAL AHMAD

Decided On April 15, 1957
FAKRUDDIN Appellant
V/S
IQBAL AHMAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., for revision of an order passed by the Civil Judge, Agra, permitting the opposite parties plaintiffs to sue as paupers. The suit instituted by the opposite parties against the applicants is one for declaration of title, possession of immoveable property and damages and is valued at Rs. 6,000 on which court-fee of Rs. 835 is payable. The learned Civil Judge after an enquiry found that the opposite parties were not possessed of sufficient means to enable them to pay the court-fee.

(2.) The first contention of Sri Gopal Behari was that the learned Civil Judge was in error in permitting the opposite parties to sue as paupers merely on the finding that they were not possessed of sufficient means and that he should not have permitted them unless he found that they were not entitled to property worth Rs. 100. This contention is based upon the explanation

(3.) The principal reason for the argument was that the words "where no such fee is prescribed" could not mean "where no such fee is chargeable or payable," because if no fee was chargeable or payable, there would be no object in declaring the plaintiff to be a pauper. This assumes that a plaintiff is declared to be a pauper only for the purpose of exempting him from payment of fee on the plaint; this assumption is erroneous. Under Rule 8 of the Order a pauper plaintiff is exempted from payment of fee in respect of any petition, appointment of a pleader or other proceeding connected with the suit. The Legislature might have thought it proper to exempt plaintiffs not entitled to property worth more than Rs. 100 from payment of these fees and, therefore, they would have to be declared as paupers even though they had not to pay any fee on the plaints. Section 19 of the Court-fees Act exempts plaints in certain suits from payment of any fee; so it cannot be argued that the words "where no such fee is prescribed" mean not that no fee is payable by law but that fee is payable by law but has not been prescribed, that is, it is not a fixed fee but left to vary from plaint to plaint.