Skip to content


C. Ekambara Mudaliar Vs. Sivasankara Mudaliar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1962)1MLJ200
AppellantC. Ekambara Mudaliar
RespondentSivasankara Mudaliar
Excerpt:
letters patent (madras), clause 15 - appeal under, from an order refusing to grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis--notice to respondent--if necessary. civil procedure code (v of 1908), order 44, rule 2 - leave to appeal in forma pauperis--refusal by single judge of the high court--letters patent appeal--notice to respondent--if necessary before deciding the letter patent appeal. where an appeal is preferred under clause 15 of the letters patent from an order of a single judge of the high court refusing leave to appeal in forma pauperis it is not necessary that notice should be issued to the respondent before the court can grant the leave to appeal in forma pauperis. no notice is necessary to the respondents before deciding a letters patent appeal against an order declining to grant.....ramachandra iyer, o.c.j.1. this is an appeal from the judgment of jagadisan, j., declining to grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis against the decree in o.s. no. 827 of 1958 on the file of the city civil court, madras. that matter came up for orders as to admission before us on 24th august, 1961. we found that the judgment of the city civil judge could prima facie be said to be erroneous in law for the limited purpose of granting leave under order 44, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure. but we were of opinion that before setting aside the judgment of the learned fudge of this court, notice to the respondent was necessary, albeit the order appealed against was passed in his absence, and we directed notice to issue. the appellant did not, however, take notice as directed but he has.....
Judgment:

Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J.

1. This is an appeal from the Judgment of Jagadisan, J., declining to grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis against the decree in O.S. No. 827 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. That matter came up for orders as to admission before us on 24th August, 1961. We found that the judgment of the City Civil Judge could prima facie be said to be erroneous in law for the limited purpose of granting leave under Order 44, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But we were of opinion that before setting aside the judgment of the learned fudge of this Court, notice to the respondent was necessary, albeit the order appealed against was passed in his absence, and we directed notice to issue. The appellant did not, however, take notice as directed but he has instead requested the matter to be spoken to before us to-day bringing to our attention the decision in Chennamma, In re (1929) 58 M.L.J. 195 : I.L.R. Mad. 254. That decision referred to certain earlier proceedings and stated that no notice was necessary to the respondents before deciding a Letters Patent Appeal against an order declining to grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis. In view of that decision, we are now of opinion that no notice need be taken by the appellant to the respondent. The appellant was the plaintiff in the trial Court and was allowed to sue in forma pauperis and as such no further enquiry into his pauperism is necessary. We therefore set aside our order, dated 24th August, 1961, directing issue of notice to the respondent and allow this appeal and grant leave to the appellant to prefer the appeal (S.R. No. 7315) in forma pauperis.


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