SHEELCHAND BHAGWANDAS JAIN Vs. BABULAL BHAGWANDAS JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L This revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed by the petitioners -defendants against an order dated 5 -7 -1977 passed by the District Judge, Seoni in Civil Suit No.1 of 1977 allowing the respondent plaintiff to sue as an indigent person.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the present revision are that respondent No.1 plaintiff has filed a suit for partition of joint Hindu family property, claiming to him -self 1/10 share, which is valued at Rs.73,840/ -. The Court -fees payable on the evaluation is Rs. 6230/ -. The respondent No. 1 plaintiff submitted an application under Order 33, rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to She as an indigent person. A notice of that application was issued to the Collector, Seoni, in accordance with the provisions of rule 6 of Order 33 of the Code. The Collector declined to make any enquiry into the matter by intimating the Court that the respondent No.1 plaintiff being a resident of village Bargi in Jabalpur district, a notice be sent to the Collector Jabalpur. The petitioner, defendants participated in the proceedings before the trial Court without raising any objection or praying that Court to send notice to the Collector, Jabalpur, by leading their respective evidence. The trial Court in the circumstance without sending a notice to the Collector, Jabalpur on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, allowed the application, that is to say, the respondent No.1 plaintiff had been permitted to sue as an indigent person. The petitioners defendants have now come up before this Court in the present revision challenging that order.

(3.) I shall first deal with the point as to whether the petitioners -defendants can challenge the impugned order under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The two decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon in support of his contention by learned counsel for respondent No.1 plaintiff are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. In both the cases before the Supreme Court, the question related to the payment of proper Court.