PROVASH CHANDRA LAHIRI Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF HOWRAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued to show cause why a certain order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Howrah on 24 May 1929, should not be set aside or such other or further order made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The order complained of was passed on an application which the petitioner Provash Chandra Lahiri had made for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The order was one by which the learned Judge refused the leave asked for.

(2.) The circumstances that are necessary to be set out for the purposes of this rule are the following: The petitioner is a Sanitary Inspector under the Howrah Municipality. He made an application for the purpose of obtaining permission to sue in forma pauperis the Chairman and the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal from service. He claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 32,000 odd. The said amount is made up of several items amongst which there is one of Rs. 1,290 as being due to him on account of balance of money at his credit in the provident fund. On receipt of the aforesaid application notice was given by the Subordinate Judge to the opposite party. The opposite party on 2nd February 1929, submitted a statement in which it was stated that as regards the sum of Rs. 633-8-0 which was subscribed by t ho said Provash Chandra Lahiri to the provident fund it was available to him and that he could go it at any time ho chose. On 4 May 1929 the opposite party filed an additional written statement in which they stated that the provident fund money payable to the plaintiff was found to be Rs. 1,307-10-6 and that the said sum was available to the plaintiff at any time that be would ask for it. The amount of court-fees payable for the plaint in the contemplated suit is Rs. 1,590. The learned Subordinate Judge dealt with the application for pauperism by the order of 24 May 1929 in which he held that the municipality had not disputed their liability for the amount which was payable to the plaintiff on account of the provident fund and in fact were prepared to deposit it and furthermore that the municipality was also willing to pay a few rupees in excess. He was, therefore, of opinion that in as much as the said amount was available to the petitioner for payment of court-fees and inasmuch as that amount together with his other properties the value whereof amounted to Rs. 400 and odd were sufficient for the payment of the court-fees the petitioner was not really a pauper. He accordingly refused the petitioner's application for suing in forma pauperis. The question for consideration in the rule which the petitioner has obtained is whether in the circumstances which have been referred, to above it can be said that the petitioner is a pauper within the meaning of that word as used in Order 33, Civil P.C.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that there was an investigation made by the Collector and fiat the Collector did not oppose the application of the petitioner to be permitted to sue in forma pauperis.