BAI LAXMI Vs. HARJIVAN NATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this suit applied for leave to continue the suit as a pauper and such leave was granted by the Prothonotary. On the application of the defendant the question has been adjourned to the Judge under Bombay High Court Rule 82.

(2.) On the 8th July an order was made in Chambers directing that the plaintiff should deposit Rs. 500 in Court as security for defendants costs within a month, and that in default the suit was to be set down for dismissal. On the 31st July the plaintiff applied for leave to continue the suit as a pauper.

(3.) On the 14th August the suit was set down for dismissal as no security was given, but as it was represented to the Court that an application to continue the suit as a pauper had been filed, an extension of time for giving security was granted. Applications to sue as a pauper are only made after notice to the defendant and not ex parte as under the Rules of the Supreme Court in England and hence the delay. The order for leave to continue the suit as a pauper was obtained within the extended time.