Skip to content


Ambaji Balwantrao Mane Vs. Hanmantrao Bajirao Deshmukh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Extraordinary Application No. 225 of 1921
Judge
Reported in(1922)24BOMLR924
AppellantAmbaji Balwantrao Mane
RespondentHanmantrao Bajirao Deshmukh
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxxiii-suit in forma pauperis-amendment of plaint-costs consequent on amendment cannot be ordered to be paid in cash-pauper.;the plaintiff was allowed to sue in forma pauperis. he applied for amendment of the plaint. the amendment was allowed; but the plaintiff was directed to pay the costs of the amendment amounting to rs. 500 to be paid in cash to the defendant. on plaintiff's failure to pay the amount, the suit was dismissed :-;that the lower court should neither have directed the plaintiff to pay the costs of the amendment in cash nor have dismissed the suit for non-compliance with the order. - .....subordinate judge made an order allowing the amendment and directing the costs of the defendant to be paid by the plaintiff in cash within a week. the costs, we are informed, would amount to about rs. 500. the plaintiff who was found to be a pauper was unable to pay that sum. the resuit was that on july 9, 1921, the learned subordinate judge dismissed the suit 'under the inherent powers of the court.' it is urged on behalf of the applicant that the order directing him to pay the costs in cash after he was found to be a pauper was wholly improper. the contention of the applicant appears to us to be unanswerable. the order directing him to pay the costs in cash should never have been made having regard to the finding that he was a pauper; and it follows that the subsequent order.....
Judgment:

Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.

1. The petitioner before us was allowed to sue as a pauper in the trial Court, the order permitting him to sue as a pauper having been made on June 12, 1920. Subsequently an application was made by him for the amendment of the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge made an order allowing the amendment and directing the costs of the defendant to be paid by the plaintiff in cash within a week. The costs, we are informed, would amount to about Rs. 500. The plaintiff who was found to be a pauper was unable to pay that sum. The resuit was that on July 9, 1921, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit 'under the inherent powers of the Court.' It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the order directing him to pay the costs in cash after he was found to be a pauper was wholly improper. The contention of the applicant appears to us to be unanswerable. The order directing him to pay the costs in cash should never have been made having regard to the finding that he was a pauper; and it follows that the subsequent order dismissing the suit for non-compliance with that order also should not have been made. We do not mean to suggest that the amendment prayed for was not properly allowed. We make the rule absolute, set aside the decree of the lower Court dismissing the suit, and send back the case to that Court for disposal according to law. The applicant to have the costs of this application.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //