RAJIB LOCHAN MAHTON Vs. PRAFULLA KUMAR OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision by the plaintiffs arises out of an order of the court below, refusing their prayer to sue in forma pauperis on the ground that they were guilty of deliberate suppression of material facts intended to perpetrate fraud upon the court.

(2.) The relevant facts are these: The petitioners filed an application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to sue the opposite party for recovery of a sum above Rs. 8,00,000/, an amount which must be said to be quite substantial. In the schedule of the properties belonging to them, only two items were mentioned, namely. (1) Wearing apparels (old) valued at Rs. 200/- and (2) old cooking vessels etc.. valued at Rupees 300/-. In the rejoinder petition filed by the opposite party, it was disclosed that the petitioners had received compensation in different land acquisition cases in the years 1969 and 1970. more than Rupees 64,000/- and that out of the said money received by them, they have purchased extensive first class paddy growing lands. It was further disclosed that apart from the acquisitions, they have sufficient ancestral lands of high value.

(3.) Petitioner No. 3 who examined himself in support of the petitioners' case, however, stated that none of the petitioners had acquired any land, and that lends that they had were already acquired and the money which the petitioners got as compensation under the various land acquisition proceedings was spent otherwise and not for purchasing lands as alleged by the opposite party. In course of the evidence, however, the opposite party produced various documents from that, which have been discussed in sufficient detail by the court below, it is apparent that during the period 1968 to 1971, petitioner No. 1 along with his father purchased extensive lands under 5 registered documents jointly, for a value of rupees about 11,000/-. Similarly, petitioner No. 5. Khetu Mehton purchased lands worth Rs. 2,700/-. Lands worth about Rs. 34,000/- were further acquired during the year 1965 in the name of the father of petitioner No. 1. The court below has further discussed the evidence to show that father of the petitioner No. 1 had acquired lands worth about Rupees 50,000/-. The learned Subordinate Judge also recorded a finding that during the years 1970 to 1972, the petitioners had more than Rs. 60,000/- by way of compensation. On all these materials, the learned Subordinate Judge took a view that the petitioners were bound to disclose all these properties in the schedule of the plaint and by omitting to do so were guilty of deliberate suppression of material facts.