AMBAJI BALWANTRAO MANE Vs. HANMANTRAO BAJIRAO DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before us was allowed to sue as a pauper in the trial Court, the order permitting him to sue as a pauper having been made on June 12, 1920. Subsequently an application was made by him for the amendment of the plaint. THE learned Subordinate Judge made an order allowing the amendment and directing the costs of the defendant to be paid by the plaintiff in cash within a week. THE costs, we are informed, would amount to about Rs. 500. THE plaintiff who was found to be a pauper was unable to pay that sum. THE resuit was that on July 9, 1921, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit "under the inherent powers of the Court." It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the order directing him to pay the costs in cash after he was found to be a pauper was wholly improper. THE contention of the applicant appears to us to be unanswerable. THE order directing him to pay the costs in cash should never have been made having regard to the finding that he was a pauper; and it follows that the subsequent order dismissing the suit for non-compliance with that order also should not have been made. We do not mean to suggest that the amendment prayed for was not properly allowed. We make the rule absolute, set aside the decree of the lower Court dismissing the suit, and send back the case to that Court for disposal according to law. THE applicant to have the costs of this application.