BAGUSETHI MANIKYAM Vs. BAGUSETHI RAMAMURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 8 of 1971 in forma pauperis against the opposite party in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Rayagada, for recovery of past and future maintenance claiming herself as the legally married wife of the opposite party. The suit was dismissed on 27-3-1973 on the finding that the petitioner was not the legally married wife of the opposite party though admittedly she was his concubine. The petitioner filed a First Appeal in this Court on 3-7-1973 under Order 44, Rule 1, C.P.C. Along with the grounds of appeal she filed two applications - one for allowing her to prosecute the appeal in forma pauperis and the other to permit her to present the application and the memorandum of appeal through her Advocates in whose favour she had executed Vakalatnama. The last application was sworn to by the petitioner by an affidavit on 25th of June, 1973 at Rayagada. The office took objection that the presentation was not valid under Order 44, Rule 1 read with Order 33, Rule 3, C.P.C. The matter was placed before the Registrar who directed that the case is to be placed before the Bench for orders. Mr. Panda raised the same objection. This is how the question of maintainability has been taken up before further action is taken.

(2.) Mr. Panda contends that there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code to authorise an Advocate to present a pauper application and the presentation is not valid. In support of his contention he places reliance on Sections 132, 133. Order 3, Rules 1 and 2, Order 6, Rule 14 and Order 33, Rules 3, 4 and 5 (a), C.P.C.

(3.) For convenience the aforesaid provisions may be extracted: "132. Exemption of certain women from personal appearance.