MAHANTH JAIKISHUN DASS Vs. RAM NARAIN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for leave to pursue a first appeal in forma pauperis. The appeal has already been admitted. The dispute between the parties is as to the right to the mahantship of a certain math the plaintiff alleging that he is the chela of the late mahant. The dispute in the first Court lasted some time and has provoked a very lengthy judgment by which the plaintiff's suit is dismissed, and in the course of that judgment the learned Judge has made it very clear that his finding is that the suit has really been promoted by certain persons who are using the plaintiff as a mere tool. It is admitted by everybody that the plaintiff being a chela in a math has got no property whatever and that he might properly be considered as a pauper, but the machinery of leave to sue or to appeal in forma pauperis is not given for the purpope of promoting the interest of champertors but only for the purpose of protecting and giving assistance to people who are genuinely paupers and have no one to help them out of their difficulties. The facta found by the learned Judge certainly lead to the inference that the plaintiff has entered into some arrangement with his backers and if the suit is one with himself as the nominal plaintiff they will derive substantial advantages.

(2.) It has been contended by the learned advocate on behalf of the applicant that pursuant to the provisions of Order 33, Rule 5, Para. (e) it is incumbent upon the respondent to the appeal or the defendant to the suit, to prove that in fact a legal and valid agreement has been entered into, legally enforceable with respecti to the subject-matter of the proposed suit and to prove that somebody else has obtained an interest in such subject-matter, but Rule 5 merely states a series of circumstances any one of which if proved oompels the Court to reject the application and it is by no means exhaustive, and one of the circumstances which should prevent the Court from granting the permission is the fact if brought to the notice of the Court, that the suit has been throughout and will, if the application be rejected, be financed by a person who is behind the scenes.

(3.) That fact is very amply demonstrated in this case, and for this reason it is necessary to refuse the application for these provisions are not intended for the benefit of such persons as really are working behind the applicant.