LAWS(P&H)-1987-9-3

ANITA RANI Vs. STATE

Decided On September 08, 1987
ANITA RANI Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the applicants-appellants against the order of Senior Subordinate Judge, Patiala, dt. April 15, 1986 rejecting their application for permission to sue as indigent persons.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that on May 5, 1983, curfew was imposed in Patiaia. Ashok Kumar, who was a resident of that town, was standing in the chubara of his residential house along with the members of his family on the said date. It is alleged that Swaran Singh defendant-respondent 5 shot dead Ashok Kumar from the roof of the temple opposite to his house, while he was looking from behind the glass pane of the chubara. It is further alleged that the murder was committed by the said defendant at the instance of defendants 3, 4 and 6 to 10. The applicants appellants, viz., the widow and sons of Ashok Kumar deceased claimed Rupees Ten Lacs as damages for the alleged murder and filed an application under O.XXXIII, of Civil P.C., for permission to sue as indigent persons.

(3.) Respondents 3 to 1O filed an application under O.XXXIII, R.5, of Civil P.C., starting that the plaint was not in accordance with S.3 of the Fatal Accidents Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), as it did not contain full particulars of the persons for whose benefit the suit had been instituted. The parents of the deceased were alive and entitled to compensation under the Act, but they had not been added as parties in the application, nor had their names been mentioned in the application as beneficiaries. The application, it is alleged, did not satisfy the requirements of O.XXXIII, R.2 of the Code, read with S.3 of the Act and, therefore, it was liable to be rejected. It was opposed on behalf of the widow and sons. It was inter alia pleaded by them that they had not filed the application for permission to sue as indigent persons under the Act; but they had done so under the law of torts and, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable. They further pleaded that the provisions of O.XXXIII, R.2 of the Code had been complied with, as reference Co all the legal heirs of the deceased had been made in the application for permission to sue as forma pauperis.