NALLIBOYINA GANGA BHAVANAMMA Vs. KETHU SURAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are respondents 9, 13 and 15 to 19 in a petition filed by two brothers for permission to sue them in forma pauperis. They seek to revise an order passed by the District Munsif of Bezwada who allowed a review petition, I.A. No. 2522 of 1945, filed under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code which resulted in the pauper petition after having been rejected on 23 June, 1945, and ultimately dismissed on 21 July, 1945, on their failing to pay the requisite Court fee, being registered as a suit on payment of the Court fee ultimately on 12th February, 1946.

(2.) It is regrettable that neither learned advocate was instructed about the nature of the suit and in consequence they have no notion whatsoever as regards the contemplated plaint, the alignment of parties or the cause of action. On refer-;ring to the original plaint, I find that the plaintiffs are two brothers who recently attained majority. The suit they contemplate is one to set aside a sale deed in favour of the 8 defendant of the year 1939 executed by their brothers who are the first and second defendants and the husband of the seventh defendant whose children were defendants 3 to 6. The eighth defendant subsequently sold them to defendants 9, 13 and 15 to 19 who are the present petitioners. The other members f the family of the petitioners in the pauper petition made no pearance giving clear indication that this suit is one of a familiar type.

(3.) I come now to the main point for conisderation, namely, the maintain-;ability of this review petition, LA. No. 2522 of 1945 under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. The record shows that the pauper petition was substantially though not explicitly, rejected on 23rd June, 1945, by a finding that the petitioners had ancestral property more than sufficient to cover the Court-fee. The petition as posted for payment of Court-fee on 7 July, 1945; time was extended till 14 July, 1945, and finally the petition was dismissed on 21 July, 1945 Then on 21 August, 1945, this review petition was filed which sought in substance merely to extend the time given for payment of Court-fee. The District Munsif held that half the Court- fee was payable on the review petition and directed that if the petitioners paid the proper Court-fee on the review petition and also the full Court-fee payable on the plaint within a week, the review petition would be allowed. This Court-fee having been paid on 9 February, 1946, the District Munsif allowed the review petition and the suit was registered on payment of these Court-fees.