LAKSHI KANTA GHOSH Vs. SURENDRA NATH GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an order, No. 23, dated May 30, 1953 passed by Sri H.C. Ghose, learned Subordinate Judge, first court Hooghly.

(2.) Plaintiff No. 1, Mahadeb Ghosh, opposite party No. 11 in this Rule, and Plaintiff No. 2, Lakshi Kanta Ghose, the Petitioner in this Rule, filed a joint application for permission to sue as paupers. Along with the application they filed a copy of the proposed plaint alleging that the Plaintiffs as reversioners were entitled to possession of the disputed property on the death of Benodini Dasi on Jaistha 28, 1359 B.S. The Plaintiffs prayed for declaration of their title and for recovery of possession, the claim being laid at Rs. 5,750.

(3.) The court, thereupon, made an enquiry into the pauperism of the two Plaintiffs Mahadeb and Lakshi Kanta. By an order, dated March 19, 1953, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that Plaintiff No. 1 Mahadeb was a pauper but that Plaintiff No. 2 Lakshi Kanta was not a pauper. On March 31, 1953, Mahadeb's application was registered as a suit. On May 23, 1953, an application was made by the contesting Defendants, namely, opposite parties Nos. 1 to 11, praying for rejection of the plaint as the court-fees payable on the plaint had not been paid by Lakshi Kanta. On May 28, 1953, Lakshi Kanta filed an application for amendment of the plaint to the effect that Plaintiff No. 1 Mahadeb and Plaintiff No. 2 Lakshi Kanta were equally interested in the disputed property and that the share of each of the two Plaintiffs was 8 annas. Plaintiff no 2 Lakshi Kanta expressed his willingness to pay half the court-fee payable on the plaint and to proceed with the suit. These two applications, one by the Defendants and the other by Lakshi Kanta, were disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge by order No. 23, dated May 30, 1953. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the Defendants' petition for rejection of the plaint but directed an amendment of the plaint to the effect that Plaintiff No. 2 Lakshi Kanta had an 8 as share in the disputed property. By the same order the learned Subordinate Judge directed Lakshi Kanta, Plaintiff No. 2, to file a fresh suit for declaration of his 8 as share in the disputed property on payment of costs of the application for leave to sue as a pauper and on payment of proper court-fees. It is against the last part of the order, dated May 30, 1953, that Lakshi Kanta moved this Court in revision and obtained the present Rule.