Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Shri N.M. Dharaskar, appearing on behalf of the applicants, contends that in a case where a person is allowed to sue as a pauper, the suit must be taken to be instituted on the date of the application, and since maintaining a pauper suit was not a personal right of the pauper brought on record and the deceased pauper were two distinct persons in the eye of law, the Court has no jurisdiction to ask the legal representatives to pay the requisite Court-fee after the death of the pauper plaintiff. In short, the contention is that once an application made under Order 33, Rule 8, the suit must be allowed to continue in the same manner even though the legal representatives of the deceased pauper plaintiff were in a position to pay the Court-fee. The argument that after the death of the pauper plaintiff the Court has no power to direct the legal representatives to pay the requisite Court-fees is founded on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kalawati Devi's case cited supra. The learned counsel for the applicants has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore v. Dhanno Devi, . We shall refer to these authorities in due course. The decision in Kalawati Devi's case has taken a view contrary to the view of this Court in ILR (1912) 36 Bom 279 (cit. sup.). In that case this Court has observed that the provisions of O.33 of the Code of Civil Procedure negative the idea of anybody but an actual pauper, a real pauper, a man without means, being permitted to maintain or defend a suit in forma pauperis and that the privilege of maintaining a pauper suit is a personal privilege granted to people who have no means of carrying on or continuing litigation. The Consideration of the question on which admittedly there is a divergence of judicial view requires initially the consideration of the nature of the right or the privilege which is provided under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 1 thereof provides that subject to the provisions in Order 33, any suit may be instituted by a pauper, and in the Explanation to Rule 1 it is stated that a person is a 'pauper' when he is not possessed of sufficient meant to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or where no such fee is prescribed, when he is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject-matter of the suit. Rule 2 provides for the contents of the application which a person who wants to sue in forma pauperis has to make and it is provided that every application shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suit; a schedule of any movable or immovable properly belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof, shall be annexed thereto; and it shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribe for the signing and verification of pleadings. This application has to be presented by the applicant in person unless he is exempted from appearing in Court, in which case the application could be presented by an authorised agent who is in a position to answer all material questions relating to the application and who can be examined in the same manner as the party represented by him might have been examined if such party had attended in person. Rules 4, 5, 6 and 7 refer to the procedure for the hearing of the application after notice to the opposite party. Under Rule 8 it is provided: