Skip to content


Gangabai Vs. Shridhar Annaji Kulkarni - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Application under Extraordinary Jurisdiction No. 304 of 1905
Judge
Reported in(1906)8BOMLR642
AppellantGangabai
RespondentShridhar Annaji Kulkarni
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
.....section 622 of the civil procedure code.;(2) that the determination by the lower court was erroneous, for it was obvious that the possession of rs. 1600, even if it could properly be taken into account, would not enable the applicant to pay the rs. 1775, which was the fee prescribed by the law for the plaint. - - 3. but that is clearly erroneous......property of the value of rs. 1,600, and on those facts and those facts alone, it determined that the applicant was not a pauper.3. but that is clearly erroneous. section 401, civil procedure code, shows that a person is a pauper when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fees prescribed by law for the plaint.4. it is obvious that the possession of rs. 1,600, even if it can properly be taken into account, would not enable the applicant to pay the rs. 1775, which was the fee prescribed by the law for the plaint.5. it was suggested however that we cannot interfere as there is no case within the meaning of section 622.6. but we do not accept that view; we think we have jurisdiction.7. then it was suggested that the court-fee had been erroneously stated. but that.....
Judgment:

Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.

1. The applicant complains under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code that her petition to sue as a pauper was wrongly rejected and that the lower Court exercised jurisdiction illegally.

2. The facts on which the lower Court proceeded were these : The Court-fee is stated to be Rs. 1,775, and the Court held that the applicant had property of the value of Rs. 1,600, and on those facts and those facts alone, it determined that the applicant was not a pauper.

3. But that is clearly erroneous. Section 401, Civil Procedure Code, shows that a person is a pauper when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fees prescribed by law for the plaint.

4. It is obvious that the possession of Rs. 1,600, even if it can properly be taken into account, would not enable the applicant to pay the Rs. 1775, which was the fee prescribed by the law for the plaint.

5. It was suggested however that we cannot interfere as there is no case within the meaning of Section 622.

6. But we do not accept that view; we think we have jurisdiction.

7. Then it was suggested that the Court-fee had been erroneously stated. But that is a matter with which we have no concern.

8. All we do now is to set aside the order of the Judge of the lower Court and require him to dispose of the case again with reference to the observations that we have made.

9. Costs will abide the result.


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