SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(AP) 149

A.V.KRISHNA RAO
Katam Virupakshiah – Appellant
Versus
Matam Sivalingaiah – Respondent


A. V. KRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision against the order of the Court of the District Munsiff of Adoni refusing to allow the petitioners to sue in forma pauperis. The order was made under Order 33, Rule 7 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code and was based on the learned District Munsiffs finding that the petitioners were in a position to raise the requisite court fee of Rs. 225 by giving their property as security and that the allegations in their petition do not show a cause of action. The learned District Munsiff also found that the petition is not bona fide; but it is conceded that this is not one of the grounds specified in Order 33, Rule 5, on which the petition could be rejected. In support of the revision, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the reasons given by the learned District Munsiff have nothing to do with the conclusions reached by him.

( 2 ) THE material facts may be briefly stated. The three petitioners are the minor sons and respondents 2 and 3 are the adult sons of the 1st respondent. They are members of a joint family or which the 1st respondent is the manager. In or about 1951, the 2nd respondent executed a promissory note in fa














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top