KARAMJIT SINGH Vs. TEJ KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge here is to the order dated July 21, 1992 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Dhuri, whereby an objection raise as to the maintainability of an application under Order 33 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was overrule.

(2.) SHORN of details, few facts may be noticed: Plaintiff field a suit for declaration and possession by setting aside a sale dead on the ground that it was the outcome of fraud and misrepresentation etc. The defendants pleaded that the sale was a genuine transaction. Evidence of the plaintiff was recorded and thereafter an application was moved for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed by order dated August 1, 19991. The issue relating to evaluation was treated as preliminary issue and on concluding the issue, the plaintiff was directed to pay ad valorem court fee on the face value of the sale deed. It was the reafter the plaintiff moved application under Order 33 Rule 2 of the Code seeing permission to sue as an indigent person.

(3.) AN objection was taken by the defendants as to the maintainability of the said application. Cosequently, the trial Court framed the following issues on the application :