RAM BHAROSEY Vs. BISHWANATH RAO PESHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Bharosey, his brother Misrilal and their mother Mt. Bhoori appealed to the District Judge of Bareilly against the decree for possession passed in favour of Raja Bishwanath Rao Peshwa, opposite party. The appellants applied to be allowed to appeal as paupers. This application was opposed by the opposite party and by the Collector. On the date of hearing, however the Government pleader did not contest the application and the Disirict Judge permitted the appellants to appeal as paupers and also ordered, the applicants to file security for costs in both the Courts. Ram Bharosey and other appellants took time to. furnish security. Their last application for further time was not granted and the appeal was ordered to have stood rejected in default. Against this last order Civil Revn. No. 340 of 1944 was filed.

(2.) Another Civil Revn. No. 701 of 1945 wag filed on 26 October 1945, against the original order requiring Ram Bharosey and others to file security. It was filed possibly in consequence of the views expressed at the earlier hearings of Civil Revn. No. 340 of 1944.

(3.) I take up civil, Revn. No. 701 of 1945 for decision first. A preliminary objection is raised for the opposite party that no revision lies against the order requiring security and that the applicants had committed laches in not filing this revision for about two years. A revision against such order can lie if it be held that under law the appellate Court had no power to demand security for costs from a pauper appellant or if it had such power it committed material irregularity in exercising its discretion. In the circumstances of the present case the inordinate delay in filing this revision appears to be due to misunderstanding of the legal position on the part of the applicants.