Skip to content


Musammat Indri Vs. Balkishen - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All355(1); 39Ind.Cas.942
AppellantMusammat Indri
RespondentBalkishen
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxxiii, rules 5, 16, 115 - pauper, refusal to allow applicant to sue as--application, rejection of, whether operates as bar to ordinary suit--res judicata--revision, whether lies. - - we are of opinion that the learned subordinate judge acted well within his jurisdiction in taking into consideration the matters set forth in his order refusing to grant the present application......cannot be held to have decided the case, and, therefore, should not be treated as open to the revisional jurisdiction of this court. it would seem that the authorities of this court are conflicting on the point. we have, however, heard the application on the merits. we are of opinion that the learned subordinate judge acted well within his jurisdiction in taking into consideration the matters set forth in his order refusing to grant the present application. we are not prepared to say that the order is open to interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this court. this application, therefore, fails and we dismiss it with costs.2. we might add, what is fairly obvious, that this order does not deprive the applicant of any right she still has to bring a suit, although two courts.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application in revision against an order by the Subordinate Judge of Muttra rejecting an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis. A preliminary objection was taken to the effect that an order of this nature is one which cannot be held to have decided the case, and, therefore, should not be treated as open to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It would seem that the authorities of this Court are conflicting on the point. We have, however, heard the application on the merits. We are of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge acted well within his jurisdiction in taking into consideration the matters set forth in his order refusing to grant the present application. We are not prepared to say that the order is open to interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. This application, therefore, fails and we dismiss it with costs.

2. We might add, what is fairly obvious, that this order does not deprive the applicant of any right she still has to bring a suit, although two Courts have decided against her on the merits, and to show that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge is wrong. If it is wrong, we must not be understood to have decided affirmatively that any suit which might now be brought, otherwise than as a pauper, by this applicant would be barred by the rule of res judicata.


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