SHANKARBHAT BALAMBHAT KANITKAR Vs. SAKHARAMBHAT HARBHAT KANITKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff applied to the First Class Subordinate Judge to file a suit in forma pauperis. Notice was issued to the Government Pleader who did not appear, and to the opponents who asked for time. The Judge saw no reason to grant further time, and decided in favour of the applicant ex parte, the Judge being satisfied that he was a pauper and unable to pay the requisite Court fee stamp on the plaint. That order was made on the 6 November 1920.

(2.) On the 8 April 1921, an application was made, the exact nature of which is not quite clear from the record. But it was refused by the Judge on the ground that the plaintiff had been guilty of fraud from the beginning. The same day the Judge held the plaintiff to be dispaupered and the suit was dismissed. The Roznama is not very clear as printed at p. 1, because it will be seen that the defendant applied that the plaintiff be dispaupered since he held a life-policy. Accordingly he was dispaupered and ordered to pay Court fee by a fixed date. He did not pay it on the date fixed and took further time. On the 8 April he said he could not pay the Court fees because his policy was valued at only Rs. 245. The Judge held that his conduct had been improper and so he should be dispaupered, and as he was not going to pay Court fees, his suit was dismissed.

(3.) Now it is quite true that the plaintiff did not mention the fact, when he applied for leave to file a suit in forma pauper is, that he held a life-policy. That was an endowment Policy for Rs. 1,000, which would only be paid at the end of the endowment period, provided the premia were duly paid, and it is quite possible that the plaintiff never considered the Policy as a present asset, or that it had a surrender value, so that we hardly think that the Court would be justified in saying that he had been guilty of gross fraud on the Court by concealing the Policy. The only result would be, when the fact that the plaintiff had that Policy came to the notice of the Court, that it would consider whether by surrendering the Policy the plaintiff could raise sufficient money to pay the Court fee. It is admitted that even if he surrendered his Policy he could not pay the Court fee which would amount to over Rs. 500.