Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Dhulipalla Brahamaramba vs Dhulipalla Seetharamayya And Ors. on 12 December, 1946 cites

Duraipandiyan vs Solaimalai Pillai And Ors. on 28 March, 1934

697 and Duraipandiyan v. Solaimalai Pittai (1934) 67 M.L.J. 332 : I.L.R. 58 Mad. 169 but it ignores the fact that an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis is a plaint and that the legal representative of the applicant is entitled to enforce all the rights which he possesses. Moreover, the learned Judge also ignored the provisions of Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Chunna Mal vs Bhagwant Kishore on 11 May, 1936

6. On the other hand, two of the Judges of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held in Chunna Mal v. Bhagwant Kishore I.L.R. 1937 All. 22 ( F.B.) that an application to sue as a pauper was not a composite document, although the third Judge was of the opinion that it was. There an application for leave to sue as a pauper was refused and an application for a review of the order met with a similar fate, but the Court of first instance allowed time to the petitioner to deposit the requisite Court-fee. In revision the High Court by a majority held that when an application for leave to sue as a pauper is rejected under Order XXXIII, Rule 7(3), the Court cannot under Section 149 of the Code allow the applicant to pay the requisite Court-fee and treat the application as a plaint. The majority opinion was expressed by Sulaiman, C.J., and Bennett, J. The dissentient Judge was Allsopp,J. The learned Chief Justice and Bennett, J., held, however, that when the rejection was under Order XXXIII, Rule 5, time to pay the requisite Court-fee could be allowed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Totaram Ichharam Wani vs Dattu Mangu Wani on 28 August, 1942

In Totaram Ichharam v. Dattu Mangu I.L.R. 1943 Bom. 138 Beaumont, C.J., and Wassoodew, J., held that an application for the appointment of a commissioner to take an inventory of property could be filed along with a petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis and be dealt with by the Court under Order XXXIX, Rule 7 of the Code. The learned Chief Justice said that he entertained no doubt that the plaint, whether it consisted of the original plaint, or of the petition deemed to be a plaint, took effect from the date when the plaint and the petition were presented.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1