Skip to content


indrasan Vs. Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision No. 362 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1981All193
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 33, Rule 1
Appellantindrasan
RespondentLucknow Nagar Mahapalika and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK.C. Jauhari, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK.S. Bajpai, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
.....be in a position to pay the court-fee. if he is not possessed of any means, the question whether or not the alleged, rich relations of the applicant were in a position to pay the court-fee which the applicant would have to pay should not be gone into, and he should be allowed to sue as a..........that he resided with his sons who. maintained him. the court below, therefore, held that he had sufficient means to pay the court fees, and rejected the application. aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision.2. i have gone through the impugned order. in my view the grounds on which the application was rejected are not tenable. under rule 1 of order xxxiii of the code of civil procedure, prior to its amendment, a person was deemed to be a pauper when he was not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit. in the case in hand it was not shown that the plaintiff was possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the court fee. the plaintiff had said that he was not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court fee......
Judgment:
ORDER

T.S. Misra, J.

1. This revision arises in the following circumstances : Indrasan filed a suit against Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika, State of U. P. and Lucknow Development Authority in forma pauperis. He made an application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 C. P. C., for permission to file the suit as a pauper. In his deposition before the court below he stated that he depended on his sons who were six in number and that he resided with his sons who. maintained him. The court below, therefore, held that he had sufficient means to pay the court fees, and rejected the application. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision.

2. I have gone through the impugned order. In my view the grounds on which the application was rejected are not tenable. Under Rule 1 of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, prior to its amendment, a person was deemed to be a pauper when he was not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit. In the case in hand it was not shown that the plaintiff was possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the court fee. The plaintiff had said that he was not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court fee. He had further said that he was residing with his sons who maintained him. The fact that his sons were in affluent condition and were possessed of sufficient means to pay the court fee is hardly relevant for the purpose of determining whether the plaintiff was a pauper. A Hindu son is liable to maintain his disabled father under the provisions of the Hindu Maintenance and Guardianship Act. That apart if the son keeps his father with him and maintains him that would not mean that the father is now possessed of all the properties of his sons which he can utilise in any manner he likes. The income or the assets of the son would, therefore, not be taken into account while considering whether the plaintiff is a pauper. It was observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Mt. Kanizum Hani v. Syed Mohammad : AIR1933All556 that a person may have rich relations, and yet he or she may not be in a position to pay the court-fee. If he is not possessed of any means, the question whether or not the alleged, rich relations of the applicant were in a position to pay the court-fee which the applicant would have to pay should not be gone into, and he should be allowed to sue as a pauper. In the case in hand the court below fell in error while rejecting the application when there was no evidence that the plaintiff was possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law. The court below has thus exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

3. In the result, the revision petition is allowed with costs. The order dated 4-3-1978 is set aside. The application of the plaintiff filed under Rule 1 of Order XXXIII C. P. C., is allowed, and the plaintiff is permitted to sue in forma pauperis. The interim stay order is vacated.


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