RAM LAL SAH Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to revise an order of the 29 of August, 1927, by which the Assistant Commissioner of Naini Tal rejected the applicant's application for permission to sue (sic) as a pauper.

(2.) IT has been found be the learned Assistant Commissioner that the plaintiff is a pauper within the meaning of Order XXXIII of the Civil P. C.. The learned Judge of the Court below has, however, found that the evidence adduced by the applicant did not prove that he had a good case. In this, in on opinion, the learned Judge was wrong. All that was necessary for him to see was whether the petition of the applicant and his own statement, which was recorded showed a cause of action: see Order XXXIII, Rule 5, Clause (d). The case of Shauran Bibi v. Abdus Samad 73 Ind. Cas. 538 : 45 A. 548 : 21 A.L.J. 441 : A.I.R. 1923 All. 577 is in point. The learned Judge went wrong in asking the applicant to produce evidence before him. In doing this he acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. We accordingly set aside his order and direct that the application of the applicant be admitted as a plaint and the case be proceeded with according to law. The applicant will have his costs in this Court.