The scope of enquiry before an application to sue in forma pauperis is registered is limited to the investigation as to whether the petitioner was possessed of sufficient means to pay court-fee. Evidence relating to the merits of the case is not to be produced at that stage.

SRINIVASA CHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of the District Munsif of Kurnool, dismissing the petitioners application for review of his order dated 4-4-1958. The 1st petitioner is the father and the second petitioner is the daughter who filed a suit in forma pauperis for the recovery of damages for the loss sustained on the allegation that the second petitioners mother was knocked down by a lorry belonging to the defendant and was killed. The petitioners filed the present suit for recovery of damages from the defendant This suit was filed in forma pauperis. This petition to sue in forma pauperis was opposed by the respondent firstly on the ground that the petitioners had no locus standi, he disputed the fact alleged in the plaint, that the 1st petitioner was the husband of the deceased and that the 2nd petitioner was born to the 1st petitioner and the deceased. The fact that the 1st petitioner was not in a position to pay the court-fee was also disputed. The petitioners examined in support of their pauperism petitioner No. 1 as P. W. 1. On behalf of the respondent, three witnesses were examined viz. , R. W. 1 Karnam, R. W. 2 Respondent himself and R. W. 3 who is said to be a relation of the deceased Santhamma. On this oral evidence the court came to the conclusion that the 1st Petitioner had not let in any independent evidence to show that he married Santhamma. There was no record produced evidencing the fact that Santhamma was the wife of the 1st petitioner. He animadverted on the fact that the birth extract of the second petitioner who is said to have been born five years ago at Kurnool was not produced. He therefore believed the evidence produced by the respondent and came to the conclusion that it had not been established that Santhamma was the married wife of the 1st petitioner. As regards the question as to whether the petitioners were possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee, the court came to the conclusion that the properties of Santhamma were in possession of others and not with the petitioners at the time of the suit In effect this finding wag in favour of the petitioners. The court further held that the respondent was not able to prove that the petitioners had means to pay the court-fee. While holding so, the court came W the conclusion that the petitioners had no locus standi to file the suit in forma pauperis, that the allegations in the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and in the result, it dismissed the petition to sue in forma pauperis. The petitioners thereafter filed an application under Order 47, Rule 1, read with Section 151 C. P. C. praying that the order passed by the court on 4-4-1958 rejecting their application to sue in forma pauperis be reviewed. Along with this petition the 1st petitioner filed a true copy of the Marriage Registration certificate granted by the Registrar of Marriages and in so doing he stated that he could not file that document earlier in spite of his best efforts as he was able to receive the certified copy only on 7-6-1958 and that that was an important piece of evidence showing the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased Santhamma. Therefore, it was on the basis of the fresh documentary evidence that was available, the petitioners sought a review of the Previous order. This application, was opposed on the ground that the relationship of Santhamma with the 1st petitioner was denied even at the stage of the reply notice sent by the respondent and had stated in his counter to the application to sue in forma pauperis that Santhamma was not the wife of the 1st petitioner. Under the circumstances therefore the 1st Petitioner had knowledge of the fact of respondent denying the relationship between the deceased and the 1st petitioner and as such he should have produced the evidence at the earlier stage and inasmuch as he failed to do so, it was not open to him to produce the same at a later stage and seek a review of the order.

( 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document