MAHESWAR MISRA Vs. HINDUSTHAN STEEL LTD. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit in forma pauperis for declaration that his dismissal from service was wrongful and that he is entitled to reinstatement with arrears of wages. In the alternative, he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3687.75 paid by way of damages. The suit was valued at Rs. 3687.75 paise on which court -fees of Rs. 450.75 paise was payable. In the schedule attached to the plaint, a list of properties belonging to the Plaintiff was given which were valued at Rs. 45.00. Plaintiff verified i the plaint saying that he had no other properties. After notice was served, Hindusthan Steel, Limited (Defendant) filed an objection that Plaintiff had sufficient means to pay the Court -fee. Evidence was taken and parties were heard under Order XXXIII, Rule 7, Code of the Civil Procedure. In course of cross -examination, the Plaintiff made the following statement:

(2.) MR . Das contended that the opposite party did not take any objection of the counter that the Petitioner had a provident fund account and that the Petitioner having brought the suit for a declaration that his dismissal was wrongful he could not have withdraw the provident fund amount for, payment of Court -fees.

(3.) ORDER XXXIII, Rule 2 prescribes the contents of the application. It lays down that every application for permission to sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in regard plaints in suits: a schedule of any movable or immovable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings. The verification given in the plaint suppressing the existence of provident fund to the credit of the Petitioner was in contravention of Rule 2. The Petitioner stated that he had properties worth Rs. 45/ - only.