ANIL KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff/petitioner has called in question the sustainability of the order dated 30th October, 1998 passed in M.J.C. (Civil) No.3/97 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Ambikapur.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that, petitioner as plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit and filed an application to sue as an indigent person under Order 33, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the said application was filed, the learned trial Judge directed an enquiry to be caused by the agency of the State and by order dated 5.10.1998 his application to sue as an indigent person was dismissed. The Court below after dismissing the said application directed the petitioner to pay the Court fees of Rs. 81,800/- on the plaint. Time was granted till 27-10-1998. As the petitioner could not pay the Court fees, further adjournments were granted to comply with the order and eventually by order dated 30th October, 1998 the Court dismissed the suit for non-payment of the Court fees and directed the Collector, Sarguja to take appropriate action under Order 33, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said direction is the cause of grievance of the revisionist.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Sunil Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.S.Jha, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. Mr. Sinha has contended that the order passed by the Court below manifests jurisdictional error and deserves to be lanceted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.