MADHAVARAPU SRIRAMAMURTHY Vs. MAMIDALA SUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this Civil Revision Petition filed an application under Order 33, Rule 1, for leave to sue in forma pauperis. She claimed that two promissory notes executed by the defendant in favour of her husband for Rs. 4,400 and Rs. 4,000 on 21-9-1959 and 22-7-1960, respectively, were endorsed in her favour for collection. After giving credit for part payments made on 21-11-1960 and 20-2-1961 in respect of the first promissory note and on 15-5-1962 and 2-1-1963 in respect of the second promissory note, an amount of Rs. 6,813.89 was still due on the two promissory notes. She claimed that she was not possessed of any property and that therefore leave should be granted to file the suit as a pauper. The defendant opposed the application on various grounds. So far as the first promissory note dated 21-9-1959 is concerned, it was stated that the last part payment pleaded being on 20-2-1961, the suit was clearly barred by limitation. The defendant further pleaded that the endorsement for collection did not vest any cause of action in the endorsee and that the suit was not competent at her instance.

(2.) The learned District Judge held that, so far as the promissory note dated 21-9-1959 is concerned, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and leave could not, therefore, be granted in respect of that part of the suit which related to that promissory note. Excluding the amount claimed on the first promissory note, the balance was only Rs. 2,055.20 and as a suit for recovering that amount was within the competence of the District Munsif's Court, the learned District Judge directed that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the Munsif's Court. He allowed the petition for permission to sue in forma pauperis in so far as it related to the promissory note of 29-7-1960 and that is why he directed the return of the plaint instead of the petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis.

(3.) Mr. Ramanujachari for the defendant-petitioner contends that the learned District Judge should not have granted permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis as she was a mere endorsee for collection and therefore, had no beneficial interest whatever in the subject-matter of the suit. He relied upon Order 33, Rule 5 (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure which runs as follows:-