CHOUDARY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This revision petition arises in the following circumstances : The plaintiff had original ly filed the suit in forma Pauperis, He w;:s per- mitted to sue in Forma Pauperis ; and the O.P. wss numbered as O.S, Thereafter the plaintiff died, and his L. Rs., were brought on record. The LRs were not allowed to continue to prosecute the suit as pauper. They then took time to pay the court fee. But, on the day fixed for payment of court fee, neither the LRs., in person nor through counsel were present in the court. Therefore the suit was dis- missed by the lower court, and the court fee due to the Government was directed to be paid by the plaintiffs (LRs , of the deceased plaintiff) This revision, therefore, raises a substantial question of law as to whether the LRs., brought on record could be directed to pay the court-fee when the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. In the circumstances, I think it is better that the Civil Revision petition is heard and decided by Bench. Therefore the papers may be placed before My Lord the Chief Justice for orders. In pursance of the above said order this Revision petition coming on for hearing before bench and upon perusing the petition the order of the lower court and rendered In the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr, Y,V. Narayana, advocate for the petitioners and of the Govt-pleader for GAD., on behalf of the departments. The court delivered the foU lowing:

(2.) It is clearly provided in Rule 11 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure that in cases where the plaintiff Is dispaupered the court may order the plaintiff to pay the requisite court-fee within the time to be fixed by it and In default dismiss the suit and make an order for the payment of court-fee. It is under this provision the lower court passed tht order under revision.

(3.) The argument of Sri B. Ramalingeswararao, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were never allowed to sue as paupers and therefore there is no question of dispaupering them In which case the provision mentioned above is not applicable and the only course open to the lower Court was to reject the plaint whe n within the time allowed by the court, the court-fee was not paid. We do not think so. When the original plaintiff was allowed to sue as a pauper and when he died and the present petitioners stepped into his shoes, It means that originally they were allowed to sue as paupers. That is why the petitioners themselves filed a petition to allow them to continue to sue as paupers. That was rejected by the lower court and the order In question dispaupering the petitioners was made. We do not think the order passed by the lower court is in any way wrong. Accordingly the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.