HARA SATNAMI Vs. DHANESWAR PUTEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a petition in the court below under O. 33, R. 1, C.P.C. to allow him to prosecute his suit as an indigent person. That petition was dismissed by the impugned order and hence this appeal.

(2.) The court, as I find from the impugned order, has rejected the aforesaid petition of the appellant mostly on the consideration that his natural father, who is representing the minor plaintiff-petitioner in the suit as his next friend, has Ac. 8.29 decimals of land.

(3.) In dealing with a matter of this nature the financial capacity of the plaintiff himself, and not his next friend or near relations, is to be considered. In this connection, the decision reported in AIR 1929 Lah 746 (2) (Shavan Singh v. Mt. Man Kavir); AIR 1946 Lah 81 (Mohammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Bibi); AIR 1970 Delhi 81. (Kewal Krishan v. Khazan Singh) he seen. In the case reported in (1881) ILR 3 Mad 3 (Venkatnarasayya v. Achemma) it has been held that