JOGENDRA NARAYAN RAY Vs. DURGA CHARAN GUHA THAKURTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why an order of the Subordinate Judge of Barisal dismissing an application for leave to sue as a pauper should not be set aside.

(2.) The petitioner applied in the Court below for leave to sue in forma pauperis for recovery of certain debattar property. The learned Subordinate Judge found that he was a pauper, but dismissed the application on the ground that upon the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the suit was barred by limitation. The Court below says that the evidence adduced by the petitioner shows that since 1286 B.S. neither the petitioner nor his father has ever been in possession of the property. No such statement was made by the plaintiff himself either in his plaint or in his examination before the Court, and the learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, has evidently come to that conclusion upon certain statements made by some witnesses (on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner) who had been summoned for a different purpose; namely, for the purpose of proving that the plaintiff was a pauper.

(3.) The question is whether the Court below was right in taking evidence on the point in an enquiry into the pauperism of the petitioner.