ASHOK KUMAR Vs. KULDEEP CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, whereby he has dismissed the application of the appellants for permission to sue in forma pauperis.

(2.) THE proposed suit was one for declaration and possession of the suit -property. The value of the suit was Rs. 12,100/ - on which the court -fee payable was Rs. 825/ -. The plaintiffs -applicants declared that they were paupers and made a prayer for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The relevant application was made on 26 -6 -1967. The respondents opposed the application. On consideration of the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the applicants had no property, movable or immovable, of their own. He, however, held that one of the applicants, namely, Ashok Kumar, was in the employment of the Land Development Bank from 4 -7 -1968 to 27 -10 -1969 at a gross salary of Rs. 120/ - per month and that earlier also he was in the service of a private firm named Chand House, Srinagar, from April 1967 to March 1968. He also held that Muni Kumari, another applicant, was in the service of the Co -operative Department from 3 -3 -1967 to 23 -8 -1967 at a monthly salary of Rs. 80/ -. On these findings he jumped to the conclusion that the applicants could not be declared paupers. Aggrieved by this order the applicants have come up in appeal to this court.

(3.) THE impugned order is one made under Rule 7 and not under Rule 5 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly no appeal could lie in the instant case in that an order made under Rule 5 alone is appealable as provided in Order 43 Rule I.C.P.C. We, however, treat this appeal as a revision petition.