RATANLAL Vs. BHAIRONDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is an application by Ratanlal for grant of a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 (1) (a), (b) and (c) from the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 41 of 1951 to which one of us was a party, dated 13-5-1952.

(2.) A short history of the litigation leading up to the present application may be given. Ratanlal, the present applicant, and his brother Ranchhor Dass (now dead) obtained a monopoly to start a wool press from the former State of Bikaner, in 1928. As they had no capital, they took a loan from Kaluram Chauthmal. There was some dispute with respect to that loan, and an arbitration award was made in June, 1930. By that arbitration award Ratanlal had to pay Rs. 73,000/- to Kaluram Ghauthmal within a certain time. If the payment was made, the press was to become the property of Ratanlal and his brother. But if the payment was not made within the time allowed, Kaluram Chauthmal were to pay Rs. 10,000/- to Ratanlal and his brother and were to become the owners of the press. Ratanlal and his brother took Rs. 73,000/- from Bhairu Dan, and paid off Kaluram Chauthmal. They also took a further sum of Rs. 11,000/- from Bhairu Dan. Later on, a dispute arose between Ratanlal and his brother on the one side, and Bhairu Dan on the other, as to the nature of the transaction between them. Bhairu Dan claimed that the press had been, sold to him for Rs. 84,000/-, while Ratanlal and his brother said that the transaction was only a mortgage. In any case, the Patta of the Press was granted by the former state of Bikaner to Bhairu Dan, and was notified in the Bikaner Gazette on 18-10-1930. Bhairu Dan also got possession of the entire building except two rooms which were retained by Ratanlal arid his brother. Bhairu Dan's case with respect to this was that Ratanlal and his brother were in his service and were allowed to retain the rooms as such. Eventually, Bhairu Dan got possession of these two rooms also in February, 1934. Then on 5-2-1936 Ratanlal and his brother filed a petition in the Bikaner High Court for leave to sue in 'forma pauperis' and for recovery of possession of the press. The Bikaner High Court held that Ratanlal and his brother were paupers; but they also held that there was no cause of action, and the petition to sue in 'forma pauperis' was dismissed. Two months' time was allowed, however, to make good the court fee if they wanted to proceed with the suit. Ratanlal and his brother went in revision against this order. This revision was dismissed, and an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the former State of Bikaner was also dismissed in September, 1938. Then it is said that there was some Faryadi petition before His Highness the Maharaja of Bikaner. An order was passed on this petition on 31-3-1949, by which His Highness of Bikaner waived limitation, and allowed Ratanlal and his brother to bring a suit on or before 6-4-1949. On 5-4-1949, Ratanlal filed a petition in the court of the District Judge of Bikaner praying that he be allowed to sue in 'forma pauperis', and the cause of action was based on the dispossession in February, 1934. This petition was disposed of by the District Judge in December, 1950. The District Judge held that in view of Order 33, Rule 15, C. P. C. , no second petition for leave to sue in 'forma pauperis' lay. He, therefore, dismissed the petition; but by the same order he directed Ratanlal to make good the court-fee within two months in order that the suit be registered. The latter part of the order was brought in revision to this Court, and it was contended that the District Judge having held that' no second petition for leave to sue in 'forma pauperis' lay had no jurisdiction to grant time to make good the court-fee.