Skip to content


Madhavarapu Sriramamurthy Vs. Mamidala Subbamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1468 of 1966
Judge
Reported inAIR1969AP215
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 33, Rule 1
AppellantMadhavarapu Sriramamurthy
RespondentMamidala Subbamma
Appellant AdvocateN.C. Ramanujachari, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateC. Pooranaiah, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye. compensation of rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the tribunal was enhanced to rs.8,20,000/-. - 4,000 on 21-9-1959 and 22-7-1960, respectively, were endorsed in her favour for collection. so far as the first promissory note dated 21-9-1959 is concerned, it was stated that the last part payment pleaded being on 20-2-1961, the suit was clearly barred by limitation. 2. the learned district judge held that, so far as the promissory note dated 21-9-1959 is concerned, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and leave could not, therefore, be granted in respect of that part of the suit which related to that promissory note. it would indeed be most dangerous and it would throw the door open all sorts of speculative..........any cause of action in the endorsee and that the suit was not competent at her instance.2. the learned district judge held that, so far as the promissory note dated 21-9-1959 is concerned, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and leave could not, therefore, be granted in respect of that part of the suit which related to that promissory note. excluding the amount claimed on the first promissory note, the balance was only rs. 2,055.20 and as a suit for recovering that amount was within the competence of the district munsif's court, the learned district judge directed that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the munsif's court. he allowed the petition for permission to sue in forma pauperis in so far as it related to the promissory note of 29-7-1960 and that is why he.....
Judgment:

1. The respondent in this Civil Revision Petition filed an application under O. 33, R. 1, for leave to sue in forma pauperis. She claimed that two promissory notes executed by the defendant in favour of her husband for Rs. 4,400 and Rs. 4,000 on 21-9-1959 and 22-7-1960, respectively, were endorsed in her favour for collection. After giving credit for part payments made on 21-11-1960 and 20-2- 1961 in respect of the first promissory note and on 15-5-1962 and 2-1-1963 in respect of the second promissory note, an amount of Rs. 6,813.89 was still due on the two promissory notes. She claimed that she was not possessed of any property and that therefore leave should be granted to file the suit as a pauper. The defendant opposed the application on various grounds. So far as the first promissory note dated 21-9-1959 is concerned, it was stated that the last part payment pleaded being on 20-2-1961, the suit was clearly barred by limitation. The defendant further pleaded that the endorsement for collection did not vest any cause of action in the endorsee and that the suit was not competent at her instance.

2. The learned District Judge held that, so far as the promissory note dated 21-9-1959 is concerned, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and leave could not, therefore, be granted in respect of that part of the suit which related to that promissory note. Excluding the amount claimed on the first promissory note, the balance was only Rs. 2,055.20 and as a suit for recovering that amount was within the competence of the District Munsif's Court, the learned District Judge directed that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the Munsif's Court. He allowed the petition for permission to sue in forma pauperis in so far as it related to the promissory note of 29-7-1960 and that is why he directed the return of the plaint instead of the petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis.

3. Mr. Ramanujachari for the defendant-petitioner contends that the learned District Judge should not have granted permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis as she was a mere endorsee for collection and therefore, had no beneficial interest whatever in the subject-matter of the suit. He relied upon Order 33, Rule 5 (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure which runs as follows:-

'5. The Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper -

(a) to (d-1) x x x x x

(e) Where he has entered into any agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the proposed suit under which any other person has obtained an interest in such subject-matter.'

Mr. Ramanujachari contends that, when the whole of the interest in the subject-matter of the suit belongs to someone else a fortiori, leave should not be granted to the plaintiff to sue as a pauper. I entirely agree with Mr. Ramanujachari. It would indeed be most dangerous and it would throw the door open all sorts of speculative litigation if a mere endorse for collection or an agent suing on behalf a principal is permitted to sue as a pauper on the ground of his poverty notwithstanding the fact that the original payee or the principal can well afford to pay court-fee. The object of the provisions of Order 33 is to help bona fide provisions of Order 33 is to help bona fide litigants who, stricken by poverty are unable to pay the requisite court-fee. The object is certainly not to help persons set up by others for the purpose of avoiding the payment of court-fee. It may be that an endorse for collection is entitled to bring a suit in his own name, but since he possesses no beneficial interest in the subject-matter of the suit and the fruits of any decree which he may obtain are intended to benefit someone else, he should not be permitted to sue a pauper. it is obvious that the endorsement for collection is a mere ruse for avoiding payment of court-fee. The order of the learned District Judge permitting the respondent to sue as a pauper is set aside. I am told that pursuant to the order of the learned District Judge, the plaintiff has been presented to the Court of the District Munsif of Rajahmundary and is now pending before the Third Additional District Munsif as O. S. No. 441 of 1966. The learned District Munsif will dispauper the plaintiff and direct her to pay the requisite court-fee within the time fixed by him. The petition is allowed. No costs.

4. Petition allowed.


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