HARISINGH ISHARSINGH Vs. CHANDANSINGH PRATAPSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court in forma pauperis, for establishing his ownership of a taxi and for its possession. The court fee payable on the plaint was Rs. 925. The learned Registrar of the Bombay City Civil Court, who heard the pauper petition came to the conclusion that the petitioner owned 1/4th share in land, admeasuring 78 acres, in Punjab. According to the respondent, the value of this 1/4th share was Rs. 2,655. This figure was not challenged by the petitioner and it may be taken to be accepted. The learned Registrar held that the petitioner was not a pauper and was not entitled to sue in forma pauperis. He, therefore, adjourned the petition to enable the petitioner to pay the proper court fee.

(2.) THE petitioner has come in revision against the above order of the Registrar of the Bombay City Civil Court. His principal argument is that this land in which he owns 1/4th share is the only means of his livelihood and that apart from income of this land, he has no other means of livelihood and therefore his share in this land should not be taken into computation in arriving at his means. In my opinion, this contention cannot be upheld. In the first place, it has not been established that the income from this land is the only means of livelihood of the petitioner. In the second place even if this had been established, there is no exemption under O. 33, R. 1, in respect of such property of a person, who wishes to sue in forma pauperis, the income of which is the sole means of livelihood. Such property is also not exempt from attachment under the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) APART from this, the Registrar of the City Civil Court undoubtedly had jurisdiction to hold whether the petitioner was a pauper or not. No question of jurisdiction being involved, the revision application is not competent.