MASURIA DIN Vs. MOTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision from an order of the learned District Judge of Allahabad.

(2.) A pauper had been unsuccessful in a case tried by the Munsif. He applied to the District Judge under Order 44, Rule 1. to be allowed to appeal as a pauper. The learned Judge issued notice upon this application to the opposite party and to the Government Pleader. Thereafter it appears that he decided the application summarily without hearing either of the parties to whom, notice had gone or the pauper himself. The order was as follows: Having carefully perused the judgment and decree appealed from, I see no reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or otherwise erroneous or unjust. I therefore reject this application.

(3.) The pauper applies here in revision against this order. The applicant contends that the order of the learned District Judge was made without jurisdiction. He contends that once having issued notice, the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to deal with the application summarily. We have been referred to various authorities for and against the contention of the applicant and in particular to a case decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court, namely, Hubraji v. Balkaran Sing . We do net need to consider these cases. We decide the matter from another standpoint. The proviso to Rule 1 of Order 44 reads as follows: Provided that the Court shall reject the application unless, upon a perusal thereof and of the judgment and decree appealed from, it sees reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law, or is otherwise erroneous or unjust.