Skip to content


W.C. Kenney Vs. Nandan Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR24All356
AppellantW.C. Kenney
RespondentNandan Prasad
Excerpt:
.....et stqq. - transfer--application for leave to sue in forma pauperis filed in court of subordinate judge--application transferred by district judge to his own file--district judge not thereafter competent to send the suit bach to the subordinate judge for trial. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal..........set aside all proceedings which have taken place after the date on which the district judge granted the application to sue in forma pauperis. all these proceedings were without jurisdiction. the case must go back to the learned judge, with directions to take it up from that point and to determine it according to law. the appellant will get the costs of this appeal.
Judgment:

Knox and Blair, JJ.

1. The sole plea argued before us was that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction either to retransfer the trial of this case to the Subordinate Judge, or to hear the appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge. It appears that one Kenney, who is respondent before us, presented an application to sue in forma pawperis in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. The District Judge of Cawnpore, acting under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, withdrew this application and decided it himself. After deciding it, he retransferred the suit for trial to the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It is this order of transfer, and all that followed it, which is impugned by the appellant. In support of this contention the learned advocate for the appellant drew our attention to the case of Amir Begam v. Prahlad Das Weekly Notes 1902 p. 66. That case is undoubtedly an authority. The only way in which the Learned Counsel for the respondent tried to distinguish it is, that when the application for permission to sue as a pauper was decided, the suit, which then came into existence, returned automatically--to use his own expression--to the Court which had jurisdiction to hear and determine it, i.e. the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. We see no authority for holding that there is any breach of continuity between the application to sue in forma pauperis and the suit into which that application matures. According to Section 410 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application, as soon as it is granted, is deemed the plaint in the suit, and it has more than once been ruled by this Court that in such a case the plaint really dates back to the date of the application, not to the day when the application is granted and registered.

2. This appeal must, therefore, succeed, and we decree this appeal and set aside all proceedings which have taken place after the date on which the District Judge granted the application to sue in forma pauperis. All these proceedings were without jurisdiction. The case must go back to the learned Judge, with directions to take it up from that point and to determine it according to law. The appellant will get the costs of this appeal.


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