RAGHURAI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIASITAPATI KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application In revision by the plaintiffs-applicants is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Patna, dated 22-11-1952 whereby he rejected the petitioner's application for permission to sue in forma pauperis.

(2.) Plaintiff 1 Raghurai Singh had two other brothers Firangi and Ramjatan. Kedar, the third son of Ramjatan is plaintiff 2 on the allegation that he is the adopted son of plaintiff 1. Mst. Sitapatikuer the widow of the predeceased son of plaintiff 1, is defendant 1 in the suit, and the descendents of Firangi and Ramjatan are defendants 2 to 7 in the suit. The plaintiffs brought the suit for declaration of their title to recovery of possession and partition of their shares in the land in suit. As, according to the case of the plaintiffs, they had no means to pay court-fee for the suit, they filed an application under the provisions of Order 33, Civil P. C. for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The learned Subordinate Judge took the vew that since the plaintiffs were being backed by Mathura Singh one of the sons of Ramjatan Singh, they are not entitled to be permitted to sue as a pauper and in that view of the matter, their application was rejected. The fact that the petitioners are paupers has not been contested; as a matter of fact, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party in this Court has conceded that for the purpose of this case the plaintiffs will be taken to be paupers That being the position, it has to be seen whether the application of the petitioners to sue in forms pauperis could be rejected on the ground given by the learned Subordinate Judge.

(3.) Mr. Sarwar All, who appeared for the petitioners in this case, has raised two points. His first contention is that Rule 5, Order 33 is exhaustive and does not contemplate the ground on which the learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the application to be a ground on which permission could be refused to sue in forma pauperis. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case of -- 'S. E. Orde v. Mrs. T.C. Deacon', AIR 1952 All 582 (A), but a Bench decision of this Court in -- 'Jaikishun Dass v. Ram Narain', AIR 1939 Pat 385 (B), has taken a different view. It was held in that case that Rule 5, Order 33, Civil P. C., merely states a series of circumstances, any of which, if proved compels the Court to reject the application; and it is by no means exhaustive. In view of the decision of this Court the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners has to be rejected.