RAMDAS SAHU Vs. RAM CHANDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts material for the decision of this case are these :

(3.) IT is the definite case of the petitioner that he has no possession and control over any of the properties from which he could raise the amount of Court-fee payable in this case, which would foe nearly three thousand rupees. The suit itself was valued at Rs. 10,90,100/- in which the petitioner claims one-sixth share. What has to be decided in an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis is whether the person making the application is or is not a person possessed of sufficient means to pay the Court-fee, and a mere claim is not 'means' within the meaning of Order XXXIII Rule 1, and hence it cannot be taken into account in determining the question whether the petitioner is 9 pauper within Order XXXIII Rule 1--see Mt. Chanda Begum v. Maqsood Husain, AIR 1942 All 319 (A). True it is that all applications for leave to sue in forma pauperis should set forth with the utmost good faith the whole of the assets of the applicant and. if it should appear in the course of the hearing that the applicant has not stated with the utmost good faith the whole of his assets the application should be rejected. Mr. Ghose, appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner, however, prays that the petitioner may be permitted to file an application for amendment of his original application to sue in forma pauperis wherein he proposes to pet out all the properties to which he may be deemed entitled but which are beyond his control and possession, and thus he proposes to fulfil the requirements of Order XXXIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Ghose, relies on Madan Mohan Lal v. Jhalman Singh, AIR 1954 Cal 89 (B) where it has been laid down that, where an application for permission to sue PS a pauper is otherwise in order, mere omission to include therein some property is not non-compliance with the provisions of Order XXXIII Rule 2 which must entail the rejection of the applicatioin under Rule 5, and permission should be granted for making an application for amendment of the original petition. To me it appears that in this case this decision should be followed, because according to the case of the petitioner he has been ousted of all his interest in the family properties and is residing with his sister, and has come forward with his claim in the present suit just on attaining majority, and his case is that he has no control or possession order any of the family properties. IT appears that the petitioner is not even fully aware of all the family properties, and opportunity should be given to him to include them by way of amendment.