UMAKADT MISHRA Vs. SHANKAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed this miscellaneous appeal against an order dated 27th November, 1976 passed by Shri Moti Ram, Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Muzaffarpur, in Miscellaneous Case no. 1 of 1973. By the aforesaid order the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the miscellaneous case on coming to a finding that the plaintiffs-appellants were not entitled to prosecute the suit as paupers. At the outset, it may be pointed out that under the provisions of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, permission to sue as pauper can be granted only if it is held that a party has no means to pay the required court-fee.

(2.) In the present case it appears that there is a demand for payment of court-fee of Rs. 2,317.50. The plaintiffs-appellants previously filed the suit before the Munsif, 1st Court, Muzaffarpur, and they paid requisite court-fee but the question of pecuniary jurisdiction arose and since the valuation was raised, the Munsif was pleased to return the plaint. The plaintiffs-appellants, therefore, presented the plaint before the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Muzaffarpur, before whom the question of payment of aforesaid court-fee arose.

(3.) In my opinion, the appellants have failed to establish that they have no sufficient means to pay the court-fee. The plaintiffs appellants had filed a list of properties which they possessed but a perusal thereof discloses that they have suppressed some of the properties and have not given a correct list. The defendant respondent has pointed out that the plaintiffs-appellants have got an annual income of nearly Rs. 2000/from the tobacco shop which is running in the town of Muzaffarpur and they hold licence under the Exise Act for the same. In addition to that, it has been found that the plaintiffs have got buffaloes and cows worth more than one thousand and besides, these he draws income from his clientale (Zajanka) and that plaintiff no. 2, the mother of plaintiff no. 1, possesses ornaments worth Rs. 1500. Those facts have not been denied by the plaintiffs-appellants and therefore, in my opinion, the learned Subordinate Judge has taken right view in rejecting the prayer to allow them to prosecute the suit as paupers and has assigned good reasons for the same.