MT RAM KAILASH KUNWARI Vs. ISHWARI SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application asking for revision of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur who dismissed an application for leave to sue as a pauper upon the ground that the application was not in proper form and that it was not presented by the applicant in person or by a properly authorised agent on her behalf. The alleged defects in the application were that the application was not in the form of a plaint in accordance with the provisions of Order 33, Rule 2, Civil P.C., and that it was not properly verified as a plaint should be verified because there was no verification in respect of the paragraphs of the plaint according to their numbers. The application was presented on behalf of the applicant who is a pardanashin lady by her husband. This man had in his possession at the time a special power of attorney alleged to have been executed by the applicant.

(2.) The Court admitted the application in the first instance on the report of its officer that the application was in form. Notice was issued to the Government Pleader and to the defendants. An objection was then made by the defendants that the husband of the applicant had no authority to present the application. The Government Pleader admitted that the applicant was entitled to sue as a pauper. The matter dragged along in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge for three years and then the application was ultimately dismissed upon the grounds which we have stated. We are not satisfied that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in dismissing the application upon these grounds. It may be that there were certain formal defects, but we consider that the learned Subordinate Judge, especially at that stage after the period of limitation had expired, should have allowed these defects to be removed by amendment.

(3.) We express no opinion upon the question whether an application for permission to sue as a pauper is invalid merely because the portion of it which contains the particulars required in regard to plaints is on a separate piece of paper from the application that permission should be given to the applicant to sue in forma pauperis. That was the position in this case. Even if this is a defect it is one which the learned Subordinate Judge might have allowed to be removed by amendment. As to verification we find that the point was never brought to the notice of the applicant during the three years in which the matter was pending in the Court. The point was not raised in the written statement put in by the defendants. , It would have been very easy for the learned Subordinate Judge to have required the person who put in the application to supplement it by a proper verification.