MEGHBAI Vs. POONJABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in Suit No. 458 of 1905 filed this petition praying that she may be allowed to continue this suit in forma pauperis. The matter was fully heard by the Prothonotary who, after recording evidence, delivered judgment on the 5 of February last, refusing to give leave to the plaintiff to continue the suit in forma pauperis. On the 19 of February the petitioner's attorney applied to me in chambers under Rule 80A1 to have the matter adjourned to me. I directed notice of this application to be given to the defendant's attorneys. On the 23 of February last I heard the defendant's attorney and then made an order adjourning the matter to the Judge in chambers. The matter was fully argued before me on the 4 of March 1907 by Mr. Thakordas for the petitioner and Mr. Jamietram for the respondents. When adjourning the matter into chambers I gave directions at the request of the defendant's attorney to the plaintiff's attorney to file in the Prothonotary's office the grounds on which the application was based. This has been done.

(2.) Rule 80A1 is of recent introduction and I believe this is the first application under the Rule to the Chamber Judge. I was in doubt as to what was the extent of the powers conferred on the Judge in chambers by this Rule and as to whether the proceedings before me were in the nature of an appeal, review, or revision. I find that this Rule is framed from the practice followed in England under Order 55. Rule 15 under this Order provides for the delegation of some of the duties of the Judges of the Chancery Division to their Chief Clerks and Section 69 provides for the taking of the opinion of the Judge. In Upton V/s. Brown (1882) 20 Ch. D. 731 the Master of the Rolls expressly recognises the right of the party to have every item in an account in the course of being taken by the Chief Clerk adjourned to the Chamber Judge if the party is dissatisfied with the decision of the Chief Clerk. Then again in the case of Smith v. Watts (1882) 22 Ch. D. 5, in discussing the question of adjournment to the Judge, Sir George Jessel, Master of the Rolls, says: -The Chief Clerk decided against them and they took the case to the Judge. This is not an appeal. They were entitled to have the opinion of the Judge. " And Lord Justice Cotton follows up by the observation that the losing party has a right to require that the matter should be decided by the Judge himself.

(3.) Formerly all pauper investigations used to be put on the Board of a Judge hearing short causes and they were dealt with by the Judge. This duty is now under the Rules delegated to the Prothonotary and this has worked most satisfactorily and has saved a great deal of the Court's time. On the authorities however and under Rule 80 A1 it seems to be the right of a party dissatisfied with the Prothonotary's decision to apply to the Judge to have the matter adjourned to him and I take it that the Judge in chambers is bound to take up the matter and decide the matter for himself.