SHAMBHU SINGH Vs. LEENA RAJPUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dtd. 11/7/2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumerpur in Civil Misc. Case No.12/2017 whereby the application under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the plaintiffs respondents for suing as indigent person has been allowed. A suit for cancellation and declaration of the relinquishment deed to be void and ineffective qua their rights; partition; permanent and mandatory injunction was preferred by the respondent-applicants Nos.1 to 3 (respondent No.3, being a minor-through his natural guardian-Mother).

(2.) An application under Order 33, CPC was also preferred alongwith the suit seeking permission to sue as an indigent. The said application has been allowed vide the order impugned, aggrieved against which the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners non-applicants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the schedule of properties, as provided under Order 33 Rule 2, CPC which is a mandate, having not been filed by the applicants alongwith their application, it could not have been entertained. Learned counsel submitted that the law mandates not only for the submission of the schedule of properties belonging to the applicant but also for a preliminary enquiry as to whether a person is an indigent person. After the said preliminary enquiry, if the Court reaches to the conclusion that the applicant is not an indigent person or the application is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rules 2 and 3, the Court shall reject the application. If the Court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds stated in Rule 5, it shall proceed for hearing on the application in terms of the procedure as prescribed under Rule 7. It is only after the notice being served to the opposite party; examining the witnesses of either party including the applicant, if required; and after hearing the parties, the Court would proceed on to either allow or refuse the application. In the present matter, the Court did not follow the above procedure as mandated by law and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.