ARUMUGA GOUNDAN Vs. SUBRAMANIA GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff who had been permitted to sue as a pauper died pending the suit and his-concubine's son and heir who claimed to have succeeded to the subject-matter of the suit was added in his place as plaintiff 2 and permitted to proceed with the suit. Defendant 1 then applied under Order 33, Rule 9. Civil P. C, to dispauper the substituted plaintiff on the ground that he was possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee. The lower Court took evidence, and, being satisfied that the newly added plaintiff was not a pauper, directed him to pay the court-fee due on the plaint. He now seeks a revision of that order.

(2.) I am not prepared to interfere with the finding of the lower Court that the above plaintiff is not a pauper. The question is whether on this footing he can be dispaupered under Order 33, Rule 9, and ordered to pay the court-fee which would have been paid by the original plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper.

(3.) Now it was first suggested that an application to dispauper can only be filed against the particular plaintiff who was permitted to sue as a pauper and not against anybody who might take his place such as his legal representative or assignee. But this suggestion cannot in my opinion be sustained for, under Section 146 of the Code, save as otherwise provided which is not the case here, any application which can be made by or against a person can also be made or against any person claiming under him. If it was open to the defendant to apply to dispauper the original plaintiff for proper reasons, it must also be open to him to apply to dispauper his legal representative claiming under him for similar reasons.