NIRMAL KUMAR MITRA Vs. MONORANJAN CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision of an order of the Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas. By the said order the learned Subordinate Judge held that the opposite party was a pauper and allowed his application to be adjudged as a pauper with costs.

(2.) The suit out of which this application arises was filed on 21-7-1953 and there was a prayer that the plaintiff should be adjudged a pauper. The application for permission to sue as a pauper did contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits and there was a schedule attached thereto setting out the properties which according to the petitioner belonged to him with the estimated value thereof. The application was also signed and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of plaints. The value of the properties as given in the said Schedule which was schedule 'B' was only Rs. 30/- and it consisted of a bed, utensils and sundry articles. At the hearing before the learned Subordinate Judge the plaintiff gave evidence and according to his evidence his net income is Rs. 65/- per month derived from purchase and sale of old bottles. His further evidence was that he has seven mouths to feed and the rent of the house where he lives with his family is Rs. 26/- per month. There was no evidence given on the side of the opposite party to show that the plaintiff was sufficiently well off or that his evidence should not be accepted. The learned Judge relying on the evidence of the plaintiff held that he was a pauper and made an order accordingly. It is against that order that the present petition has been made to this Court.

(3.) At the hearing before us the learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the learned Subordinate Judge did not take into consideration one important fact. He contended that the plaintiff in his evidence admitted before the Court that he has got an ancestral house at Faridpur in Pakistan. The learned Judge did not in his judgment refer to that fact at all, nor did he take that fact into consideration in arriving at his decision. The learned Advocate further contended before us that in view of the fact that in Schedule 'B' referred to above this property was not included the learned Judge should have rejected the application for permission to sue as a pauper under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 5 of Order 33, Civil P. C.