SUGANCHAND Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Suganchand to revise the order of the District 'judge, Kotah, declaring the applicant to be a pauper, but calling upon him to file security equivalent to the court-fee payable in the case within one month.

(2.) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the lower court could either reject the application of the applicant if it did not find him to be a pauper or allow him to sue as a pauper, but it could not give the applicant leave to sue as a pauper and at the same time call upon him to file security for the payment of the court-fee. A notice was given to the Government Advocate also of this application for, revision. Ram Avtar Gupta on behalf of the State concedes that there is no provision in law according to which a security can be demanded from an applicant for the payment of court-fee at the time of giving him relief to sue as a pauper. S. B. L. Saksena on behalf of the defendant opposite party also concedes that such an order could not be made.