ATAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is an office note dated 22.11.1992. That is a complaint in regard to insufficient talwana. However, in my view, no talwana is necessary because no notice is necessary. This matter warrants only one order and that should be passed here, now and today for final disposal and that is made.

(2.) I have no doubt that the learned District Judge, in passing the impugned order dated 18.2.1991, acted under the misapprehension that this Court's order dated 18.7.1989, passed in M. P. No. 747/89 (copy annexed to the petition) was a mandate which he has to carry out. Unfortunately, the mandate was not directed to him. Situation has since changed in that a suit had to be filed by Mahila Kashibai who was a petitioner in that case claiming compensation and she sought assistance for enforcing her right. In the meantime, unfortunately, she died on 26.7.1989 after the order aforesaid was passed by this Court and her husband and minor children are pursuing her cause. They have managed to file the suit and in that suit, prayer is made for exemption of court -fees. It appears that enquiry was ordered into the claim of the plaintiffs/revisionists for exemption of court -fees, made in terms of · Government Notification dated 1.4.1983. The report of the Tahsildar, certified copy thereof, has been filed in this case and that is before me. Accordingly, the Collector has been heard in the matter to comply with the requirements envisaged in this Court's decision in Laxmi Narayan (AIR 1988 MP 142). As per Tahsildar's report, plaintiff Lajjaram, husband of deceased Kashibai and father of the minor children, plaintiffs/petitioners 1 to 3, is by profession a rickshawdriver, but by caste potter (Kumhar). His annual income is reported to be not over Rs. 5,000/ -. On the basis of that report which is dated 15.11.1991, the learned District Judge should have granted the prayer and exempted the plaintiffs/revisionists from payment of court -fee. There was no scope for making the impugned order dated 18.2.1991 referring the matter to the Legal Aid Board.

(3.) AS a peremptory direction is made in this matter allowing the prayer and the revision is finally disposed of, no further steps need be taken in regard to service of notice and the complaint of office is disposed of.