Skip to content


Majid HusaIn Khan Vs. Ainul Aziz Khan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1930All831; 125Ind.Cas.578a
AppellantMajid HusaIn Khan
RespondentAinul Aziz Khan and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115, order xxxiii, rule 1 - application for leave to sue as pauper--order rejecting application--omission to give reasons, whether ground for revision--revision, scope of. - - upon a consideration of the evidence that was before it, the court below came to the conclusion that majid husain khan had failed to make out that he was a pauper. we are clearly of opinion that the case does not fulfil the requirements of section 115, civil p......of at the date of the application, its market value and the title thereto. reference has been made to a decision of a single judge in in re, mahomad husain v. ajudhia prasad [1888] 10 all. 467. with utmost respect we are not prepared to accept the view propounded in this case. where a court having jurisdiction to entertain an application upon a review of the evidence rejects that application on the merits, the court cannot be said to have acted with material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of the jurisdiction which it was possessed of, merely because the court has not given detailed reasons for its view. we are clearly of opinion that the case does not fulfil the requirements of section 115, civil p.c., and reject this application with costs.
Judgment:

Sen, J.

1. This is an application for revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., from an order of the Court below rejecting the application of Majid Husain Khan for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The Court below undoubtedly had jurisdiction to entertain the application and to pass orders thereon. Upon a consideration of the evidence that was before it, the Court below came to the conclusion that Majid Husain Khan had failed to make out that he was a pauper. The finding of the Court below is essentially a finding of fact. No application for revision can be made under Section 115, Civil P.C., which is directed against a finding arrived at by the Court below which is founded upon evidence upon a point arising from the pleadings.

2. It is argued that the Court below has not gone into the details as regards the exact property which the applicant was possessed of at the date of the application, its market value and the title thereto. Reference has been made to a decision of a single Judge in In re, Mahomad Husain v. Ajudhia Prasad [1888] 10 All. 467. With utmost respect we are not prepared to accept the view propounded in this case. Where a Court having jurisdiction to entertain an application upon a review of the evidence rejects that application on the merits, the Court cannot be said to have acted with material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of the jurisdiction which it was possessed of, merely because the Court has not given detailed reasons for its view. We are clearly of opinion that the case does not fulfil the requirements of Section 115, Civil P.C., and reject this application with costs.


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