Skip to content


Gadigi Muddappa and ors. Vs. Gadigi Rudramma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1921Mad97; 61Ind.Cas.958
AppellantGadigi Muddappa and ors.
RespondentGadigi Rudramma
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order. xxxiii, rules 1,5,7 - pauper, application for leave to sue as--applicant subsequently ceasing to be pauper--court, jurisdiction of, to grant application. - - the point taken is that, having been in possession of funds after her application, the plea would fail and that she could not revive it, by paying the money away. there is no authority on this point, but i think the contention is well founded and that the court had no jurisdiction to make the order, once it had ascertained that she had ceased to be a pauper after the date of the application, the order will be set aside......the persons against whom she intended to file the suit, but said that she had paid away that amount to a creditor. there was no dispute that, at the date of her application, she was a pauper. the point taken is that, having been in possession of funds after her application, the plea would fail and that she could not revive it, by paying the money away. there is no authority on this point, but i think the contention is well founded and that the court had no jurisdiction to make the order, once it had ascertained that she had ceased to be a pauper after the date of the application, the order will be set aside. time for payment of court-fee is extended to two months from date of receipt of order.
Judgment:

Napier, J.

1. The Judge has accepted the evidence that, at the date of hearing of enquiry, the applicant was not possessed of sufficient means to enable her to pay the Court-fee on the plaint. She admitted in evidence that she had received a large sum after the date of the application from the persons against whom she intended to file the suit, but said that she had paid away that amount to a creditor. There was no dispute that, at the date of her application, she was a pauper. The point taken is that, having been in possession of funds after her application, the plea would fail and that she could not revive it, by paying the money away. There is no authority on this point, but I think the contention is well founded and that the Court had no jurisdiction to make the order, once it had ascertained that she had ceased to be a pauper after the date of the application, The order will be set aside. Time for payment of Court-fee is extended to two months from date of receipt of order.


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