Skip to content


K. Govindaswami and ors. Vs. Kamalammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1967)2MLJ396
AppellantK. Govindaswami and ors.
RespondentKamalammal
Cases ReferredAnasuyamma v. Subbareddi
Excerpt:
- .....and conditions under which a person may institute a suit in forma pauperis. under order 33, rule 2, civil procedure code, every application for permission to sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits; a schedule of any moveable or immoveable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof, shall be annexed thereto. order 33, rule 3 provides that the application shall be presented to the court by the applicant in person, unless he is exempted in accordance with the said rule. order 33, rule 4, clause (2) expressly provides for the application being presented by an agent, in which contingency of course, the court has the discretion to examine the applicant on commission, if it so requires.4. the contention of learned.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ramaprasada Rao, J.

1. The Pauper Original Petition No. 133 of 1965 was instituted by the next friend of one Kamalammal. After the filing of the petition by the next friend under Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, Kamalammal became a major. She wanted to continue the application filed by the next friend, and on such an attempt, the respondents in the said pauper original petition filed an application, I.A. No. 25 of 1966, before the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput stating that Kamalammal could not continue the said application and that she should file a fresh original petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled this objection and dismissed the application. Against this order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2. The Petitioners before me are the petitioners who filed the above interlocutory application raising the preliminary objection about the continuance of the original petition in forma pauperis by Kamalammal.

3. Order 33 under the caption 'Suits by Paupers' provides for various methods and conditions under which a person may institute a suit in forma pauperis. Under Order 33, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, every application for permission to sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits; a schedule of any moveable or immoveable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof, shall be annexed thereto. Order 33, Rule 3 provides that the application shall be presented to the Court by the applicant in person, unless he is exempted in accordance with the said rule. Order 33, Rule 4, Clause (2) expressly provides for the application being presented by an agent, in which contingency of course, the Court has the discretion to examine the applicant on commission, if it so requires.

4. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners before me is that the right to sue in forma pauperis is a privilege attached to the person, and therefore any proceeding taken by a next friend or guardian on behalf of a minor purporting to be an application under Order 33, Rule 1 for the benefit of such a minor or ward, cannot be continued by such a minor or ward after he becomes a major, for the reason that it is a personal privilege. The privilege that is attached to the person in cases governed by Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be disputed. But the question is, when the next friend is suing on behalf of the minor, whom does he represent? Order 33, Rule 2 gives a very clear answer to this querry posed by me. The next friend furnishes the particulars in regard to the plaint in question, the schedule of the moveable or immoveable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof. The word 'applicant' appearing in Order 33, Rule 2, no doubt, refers to the minor or ward in question. Therefore, even if the next friend files an application on behalf of the minor under Order 33 to sue in forma pauperis it is abundantly clear that he is doing so only for the benefit of and for the person of the minor.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to two decisions of this Court, Subbiah v. Sundara Boyamma : (1928)54MLJ582 , Anasuyamma v. Subbareddi : AIR1943Mad646 . In these two cases, the legal representatives of the erstwhile pauper desired to continue the proceedings, after the death of the person who was originally permitted to sue as pauper. While repelling the request made by the legal representatives, the learned Judges laid down a principle of law that the right to sue being a personal privilege, it cannot be extended to the legal representatives unless they are prepared to continue the suit in the ordinary manner and not by taking advantage of the special provisions of Order 33. They can have recourse to this order, if the cause of action survives by independent application. There is absolutely no difficulty in appreciating this well-established principle laid down by the learned Judges in the above two decisions. In the instant case, however, the next friend was only representing the pauper applicant. He was merely an agency to set the affairs of the minor into motion. He was declaring in the petition the properties of the minor, the particulars concerning the litigation of the minor, and, such allegations and such materials of particulars do not have any relation to the persona of the next friend but referable only to the persona of the minor. If such a minor, after she attains majority, intends continuing the application which was filed by her next friend on her behalf, I do not think that the principle laid down in Subbaiah v. Sudara Boyamma : (1928)54MLJ582 , or Anasuyamma v. Subbareddi : AIR1943Mad646 , would, in any way, prevent the minor from continuing the said application preferred by the next friend. The persona of the minor is maintained throughout, and it is for her benefit and on her behalf that the original petition has been filed, and it is that petition which is sought to be continued by the erstwhile minor who has become a major, and there is nothing in the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code which can prevent such a person, who was a minor and who became a major subsequently to continue such proceedings. In this view, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is right.

6. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.


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