BIRENDER KUMAR Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1490 and 2928 of 1984, as the question involved in the same is both the revision petitions.

(2.) The petitioner Birender Kumar filed the suit seeking possession by partition of one-fourth share in the suit property. Along with the suit, he filed the application seeking permission to file the suit as an indigent person. That application was contested on behalf of the defendants-respondents. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated April 15, 1983, holding that the petitioner was not an indigent person and that the application was not in accordance with the provisions of Order 33, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), as it was not verified at all. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Rohtak, wherein the learned Additional District Judge found that without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, it could not be held that he was not an indigent person and, therefore, the finding of the trial Court in this behalf was set aside. However, it was found that the application was liable to be dismissed otherwise on the ground that it was nor properly verified, signed and presented by the applicant, as required under Order 33 Rules 2 and 3 of the Code. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the applicant filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1490 of 1984. Meanwhile, he moved an application in the trial Court for permission to amend his original application to sue as an indigent person which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated May 7, 1984. Aggrieved against the same, he was filed Civil Revision Petition No. 2928 of 1984 in this Court which was ordered to be heard along with Civil Revision Petition No. 1490 of 1984.

(3.) It is not disputed that the application to sue as an indigent person was not presented in person by the petitioner, as required under Order 33 Rule 3 of the Code. If that is so, then the application filed by him was liable to be rejected under Order 33 Rule 5 of the Code. It was such a defect which could not be rectified by even seeking amendment of the original application. Under circumstances, I do not find any force in both the revision petitions. The proper remedy for the applicant would be to file a fresh application seeking permission to file the suit as an indigent person. Moreover, no limitation is involved in filing the suit for partition as such.