POWSULPH INDIA PVT LTD Vs. INVENTA TECHNICAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, a private limited company, filed an application for exemption from payment of court-fee on the plaint, and to institute the suit against the present respondents as an indigent person. The prayer was turned down by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack on three grounds; namely; the application was not presented as prescribed under O. 33, R. 2 of the Civil P.C. 1903 (in short, the 'CPC'); the appellant had sufficient means to pay court-fee of nearly Rs. 26,000/-; and the application was not verified properly as provided under O. 6, R. 15 of the CPC. The conclusions of the learned Subordinate Judge are assailed in this appeal primarily on the ground that the application was in order, and proper form and in any event technicality should not have weighed with the learned Subordinate Judge. The assets position of the appellant has been wrongly assessed by the learned Subordinate Judge. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the judgment is in order. It suffers from no infirmity and no interference is called for. The appellant being a company cannot be called to be indigent and therefore, O. 33 of the CPC has no application to it.

(2.) For resolution of the controversy, a few provisions which threw light are necessary to be quoted. Order 33 of the CPC relates to suits by indigent persons. Order 33, R. 1, CPC provides for suits which may be instituted by an indigent person subject to the provisions contained therein. Though different High Courts have taken contrary views in respect of partnership firm, they have no relevance so far as a company is concerned. The word 'person' in the rule includes both natural as well as juristic person. There is no substance in the plea that a company cannot file a suit as indigent person. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Kundas Sugar Mills v. Amidha Indian Sugar Syndicate Ltd., AIR 1959 All 540 (FB) has also taken a similar view. Order 33, Rule 2 relates to contents of application, and reads as follows :

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the application for permission to sue as an indigent person has to contain the particulars required in regard to plaint in suits, a schedule of movable and immovable property belonging to the applicant with the estimated value thereof, which has to be annexed thereto, and it shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings. Rule 3 provides that an application is to be presented to the Court by any person unless he is exempted from appearing in Court, in which case the application may be presented by an authorised agent who can answer all material questions relating to the application and who may be examined in the same manner as the party represented by him might have been examined had such party attended in person. The application under R. 2 is prescribed by the C.P.C. in the matter of institution of a suit as a pauper without payment of Court-fee prescribed under the Court-fees Act. There is nothing personal in such a case. The application should not be rejected summarily merely on the ground that it has not been signed and verified by the applicant. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Piare Lal v. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1933 All 295 held so. The view seems to be reasonable. Even if there is an omission in the application, the application can be returned for rectification. Bona fide omission should be allowed to be rectified. Unless there is an intentional departure from good faith, rigidity in the matter of acceptance of the application would frustrate the very purpose for which the provision has been enacted. The rule is not to be meticulously interpreted against the petitioner. A substantial compliance with the rule is sufficient. Where the applicant does not verify the contents of the petition at the foot of the petition, but does so by a separate affidavit in which the statements contained in the several paragraphs in the application were said to be true, the affidavit can be treated as part of the application. As rightly observed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Madan Mohan Lal Kapasi v. Jhalman Singh, AIR 1954 Cal 89, where the pauper petition has not been signed and verified as required by R. 2, but the plaint annexed to it has been signed and verified in the usual manner it is to be held that the Court can allow the petitioner to sign and verify the petition.