RAM JANAM MAHTO Vs. SRI BENDHYACHAL KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion the order of the learned Judge against which this application is directed cannot be supported. It appears that the petitioner had applied to the Judge for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The learned Judge on 27 January 1939 examined the petitioner's guardian on oath and then directed the Munsif to make an enquiry as to whether the petitioner was a pauper or not. Meanwhile a Deputy Magistrate also enquired into the matter and he as well as the Govt. Pleader reported that the applicant was a pauper. The Munsif however reported otherwise. On 23 March 1939 the learned Judge without hearing the petitioner passed an order rejecting his application.

(2.) After this order was passed the petitioner moved the Judge twice to hear his lawyer and review his order. But the learned Judge refused to do so. Whether the learned Judge was or was not justified in not reviewing his order need not be decided but there can be no doubt that in rejecting the petitioner's application without hearing him, he has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity and the order passed by him cannot therefore be supported. It is true that the petitioner bad appeared before the Munsif but he was entitled to show to the Judge that the report of the Munsif was wrong.

(3.) I therefore allow this application set aside the order of the learned Judge and direct that the petitioner's application he disposed of according to law. There will be no order for costs.