RUPABAI Vs. SUSHILABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -plaintiffs have directed this appeal against the order dated 2.3.1993 rendered by Addl. District Judge, Barwah in civil miscellaneous case No. 7/92, thereby rejecting appellants prayer to institute the suit in forma pauperis on the ground that the application -cum -suit filed under Order 33 Rule I of the CPC is barred by limitation.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the defendant No. 1. owned agricultural lands situated in village Rupkheda and respondent No. 2 is in occupation of the house constructed on the aforesaid lands. It is stated that the disputed lands are surrounded by wire fencing and the respondents circulated the electric current in the wire fencing. On 24.8.87, as a result of the wrongful act of the respondents, Gajrajsingh, husband of the appellant Rupabai got the electric shock, resulting into his death. The present appellants, LRs of the deceased filed suit for compensation against the respondents seeking permission to file the aforesaid suit in forma pauperis. The said prayer of the plaintiff -appellants was opposed by the respondent -defendants. The learned trial Court on consideration, rejected the prayer of the appellants to institute the suit as an indigent person, mainly on the ground that the said application -cum -suit is time barred. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal against the impugned order of the trial Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for appellants contended that the trial Court has committed an error in applying Article 72 of the Limitation Act 1963 for the purpose of calculating the limitation to the case on hand. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, Article 72 of the Limitation shall not apply to the instant case, but, the limitation will be governed by the Residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.