WAZIR PARAS RAM Vs. MANGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against an order of the Sub-Judge, Jammu, dated 13-10-1979, whereby he allowed the respondent herein to sue in forma pauperis.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent filed an application seeking permission to sue the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 5500/- as a pauper. The respondent stated that his daily income from business of cigarette selling, in the court compound, was hardly Rs. 2/3 per day and that he was unable to pay the court-fee. That the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 4300/-, the entire savings of the respondent and executed a promissory note with the stipulation that the amount shall be repaid on demand together with interest. A receipt was also executed along with the promissory note on 19-3-1975. That the respondent presented to the petitioner, through a notary, the promissory note for payment but in spite of the presentation, the petitioner has not made any payment so far. The respondent prayed that after deciding his application to sue in forma paupries, the same be treated as a suit for recovery of Rs. 5500/ (the principal and interest) from the petitioner. Along with the application, the respondent attached a schedule giving the list of his belongings.

(3.) Notice of the application to sue in forma pauperis was issued to the petitioner as also to the Collector, Jammu. The petitioner resisted the application and stated that the respondent is not a pauper and he had sufficient means to pay the court-fee. On merits, the petitioner denied the execution of the promissory note or the receipt of Rs. 4300/-. The presentation of the promissory note was also denied. The Collector, Jammu, however, reported that the respondent did not own any immovable property and that his monthly income was about Rs. 110/-only. The respondent then led evidence in support of his application. The trial court, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence led by the respondent allowed the application of the respondent to sue as a pauper. That order was challenged in the High Court by means of a revision petition and the same was set aside on the ground that the petitioner had been denied an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence led by the respondent. The case was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision in the light of the observations made. Despite numerous opportunities having been given to the petitioner by the trial court, after the case was remanded, the petitioner did not produce any evidence nor did he appear himself in the witness box to rebut the evidence of the respondent. The trial court after consideration of the entire evidence, declared the respondent to be a pauper. Hence this revision.