ATMARAM Vs. AMOLA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order of the Second Civil Judge, Bilaspur, dated 24 June, 1958 by which he held that it was- unnecessary for a represented plaint to follow once again the procedure prescribed by Order 33, Rules 3 and 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE non-applicant No. 1 filed an application for permission to sue as a pauper in the Court of Civil Judge, First Class, Bilaspur. That application was allowed and her suit valued at Rs. 7,109/8/- was registered. Subsequently the applicant appeared to be entitled to a lesser share of smaller value in the property and she was permitted to amend the plaint which was, therefore, returned for presentation to the proper Court. On being represented through Counsel in the Court of Second Civil Judge, bilaspur, the question was raised whether the procedure prescribed by Order 33, rules 3 and 4, Civil Procedure Code, had to be followed afresh. The counsel for the non-applicant No. 1, being in doubt about the position, made an application under section 151 of the Code to seek the required permission. Even so, the Court overruled the contention and passed the impugned order.

(3.) THE requirement as to the presentation of an application to sue as a pauper in person under O, 33, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, is mandatory and if it is not observed, the application must be rejected under Rule 5 of that Order.