HOTHA VENKATARAMAMURTHI Vs. HOTA KAMESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having held that the petitioner was not a pauper, the lower court dismissed the original patition without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to pay the Court-fee. There is a long catena of decisions of the Madras High Court which were followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Sulemani Begum v. Ghulam Mohammed Shafi Khan in all of which it was held that an application to sue as a pauper is a composite document consisting of an unstamped plaint and an appli- . cation for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The learned Judges held in the case cited above that even it the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis is rejected the plaint still r emains and the Court may in its discretion allow the petitioner to pay the court-fee and in such a case the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date of presentation of the application. It was pointed out by Justice Wadsworth in Kanthimathi Ammal v. Ganesa Ayyar that it is undoubtedly the practice of most Courts on coming to an adverse conclusion on a pauper application, to give the appellant some time to pay the Court-fee.

(2.) The trial Court in rejecting the original petition in its entirety committed an error of jurisdiction. Even when the trial Court held that the petitioner is not a pauper and rejected the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis, the plaint still remains on the file of the Court until it is rejected. There is no specific Order of the lower Court rejecting the plaint.

(3.) The order of the lower Court dismissing the original petition in its entirety is set aside. But the rejection of the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis will remain. The lower Court will consider whether the petitioner plaintiff should be given time for payment of Court-fee and pass appropriate orders. For this purpose, the case is remanded to the lower court. The costs of this petition will abide and follow the result. Case remanded.