RATHNAM PILLAI Vs. PAPPA PILLAI ALIAS SUNDARAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis the District Munsif fixed a day under Section 408 and held an investigation under Section 409 of the Civil P. C.. At this investigation no evidence appears to have been given either in proof or in disproof of the pauperism of the applicant, but certain documents were put in evidence on behalf of the defendant ; and the Court, relying on the decision reported in Vijendra Thirthaswami v. Sudhindra Thirthaswami I.L.R, 19 M. 197 dismissed the application on the ground that the evidence on record showed the applicant had no subsisting cause of action. I think the evidence referred to in. Section 409 is evidence in proof or disproof of the pauperism of the applicant?not evidence as to the merits of this case.

(2.) I cannot adopt the view taken by Sir Subramania Aiyar ,J., in the case of Vijendra Thirthasami V/s. Sudhindra Thirthaswami I.I.R. 19 M. 197, and I think K. Ranganayaka Ammal V/s. K. Venkatachellapathy I.L.R. 4 M. 323 was rightly decided,

(3.) I consider the Munsif acted illegally in allowing evidence to be put in on behalf of the defendant with reference to the merits of the claim of the party applying for leave to sue in forma pauperis, and in dismissing the application on the ground that on the evidence on record the applicant had no subsisting cause of action. Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.