Skip to content


Mansa Puri, Minor, Through Bhopal- Vs. Harbhagat Puri Alias Shankar Puri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All186; 37Ind.Cas.172
AppellantMansa Puri, Minor, Through Bhopal-
RespondentHarbhagat Puri Alias Shankar Puri
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxxiii, rule 5 (e)-application for leave to sue as pauper - discretion of court-'agreement' and 'proposed suit,' meaning of. - .....the respondent had executed an agreement in favour of a third party giving him an interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and that the application, therefore, should not have been granted. it appears that in 1908 the applicant mortgaged his property for the purpose of instituting a suit. we are informed that a suit was filed but it was dismissed. there is no ground for revision of this order. the court below had discretion to grant the application or not, and it is not possible to say that the court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in granting the application. it has been suggested that the said mortgage precluded the plaintiff from maintaining his application. under the law it is an agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the proposed suit that bars.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Court below granting leave to the plaintiff to sue as a pauper. The ground upon which the application was made is that the respondent had executed an agreement in favour of a third party giving him an interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and that the application, therefore, should not have been granted. It appears that in 1908 the applicant mortgaged his property for the purpose of instituting a suit. We are informed that a suit was filed but it was dismissed. There is no ground for revision of this order. The Court below had discretion to grant the application or not, and it is not possible to say that the Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in granting the application. It has been suggested that the said mortgage precluded the plaintiff from maintaining his application. Under the law it is an agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the proposed suit that bars the application. The word proposed' indicates that it must have reference to the suit which has now been instituted and that the agreement referred to is a champertous agreement. The decision of the Court below upon this point is correct. We dismiss the application with costs.


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