Corporations have the right to institute a suit in forma pauperis under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the word 'person' in the rule includes both natural and juridical persons.

Headnote:
CORPORATION - SUIT IN FORMA PAUPERIS - RIGHT TO INSTITUTE - INTERPRETATION OF ORDER XXXIII, RULE 1, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - WHETHER A CORPORATION CAN BE ALLOWED TO SUE AS A PAUPER - SCOPE AND MEANING OF THE WORD 'PERSON' - RELEVANCE OF RULES 3, 4 AND 7 OF ORDER XXXIII - APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 AND INTERPRETATION ACT, 1889 - JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS DISCUSSED.
Fact of the Case:

The Official Liquidators of a limited liability company applied for permission to institute a suit in forma pauperis for obtaining possession of the company's property. The lower court dismissed the application, holding that corporations do not have the right to sue as paupers.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that corporations can be allowed to sue as paupers under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court interpreted the word 'person' in the rule to include both natural and juridical persons, and found no provision in the Code that would prevent a corporation from filing a suit in forma pauperis.
Issues: 1. Whether a corporation can be allowed to sue as a pauper under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code? 2. Whether the word 'person' in the rule includes both natural and juridical persons?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the definition of 'person' in the General Clauses Act, 1897 is wider than that in the Interpretation Act, 1889, and that the presumption that the word 'person' includes a corporation is stronger under the Indian statute. 2. The court held that the observations of Lord Blackburn in Pharmaceutical Society v. London and Provincial Supply Association, (1880) 5 A. C. 857, about the flimsiness of the presumption that the word 'person' includes a corporation cannot be imported for considering how the word 'person' occurring in the Indian Statute is to be interpreted. 3. The court also found that the impossibility of a corporation presenting an application before the Court in person is not a circumstance to justify the inference that the legislature did not intend to extend the provisions of Order XXXIII, Rule 1 to corporations. 4. The court further held that the provisions of Rules 3, 4 and 7 of Order XXXIII do not create any difficulty in allowing corporations to sue as paupers, as the Madras High Court has pointed out in ILR 41 Mad 624.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application and sent the matter back to the lower court for determination on merits.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is an application for revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the order of the Court below holding that the Official Liquidators of a limited liability company have no right to institute a suit in forma pauperis for obtaining possession of the property belonging to the Company.

2. As has been pointed out by the Court below there is a conflict of Judicial opinion on this question. There is a group of cases in which it has been held that a Corporation cannot be allowed to sue in forma pauperis, while there is another group of cases in which it is said that it can be so allowed. The learned Judge of the Court below accepted the view of the High Courts of Calcutta, Rangoon and Punjab which is to the effect that a Corporation cannot be allowed to institute a suit as a pauper and dismissed the application made before it by Official Liquidators for being permitted to institute a suit on behalf of the petitioners, The Gendalal Cotton Mills Ltd.

3. Mr. H. R. Gokhale, who appears for the petitioners, relies strongly upon the view taken by the High Court of Madras in ILR (1937) Mad 784, Swaminathan v. Official Receiver of Ramnad and ILR 41 Mad 624, Perumal Koundam v. Tirumalarayapurma Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd. as well as the view taken by the Hyderabad High Court in AIR 1951 Hyd 124, Syed Ali v. Deccan Commercial Bank, Ltd., and contends that a Corporation being a person in the eye of the law is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Order XXXIII, Rule 1, C. P. C., and to institute a suit in forma pauperis. He also referred to three other decisions which support the aforesaid contention. Two of those cases are AIR 1944 Oudh 248, Sripal Singh v. U. P. Cinetone, Ltd. and AIR 1930 Rang 272, D. K. Cassim and Sons v. Abdul Rahman. Before examining the decisions upon which Mr. Gokhale relies, I think it would be better to consider those decisions which have found favour with the Court below.

4. In AIR 1938 Cal 745, Bharat Abhyudoy Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Karneshwar Singh, the learned Judges observed that :

"In order to decide whether in a particular Instance the word person includes an artificial person or a corporation or a company, regard must be had to the setting in which the word person is placed, to the circumstances in which it is used, and above all to the context in which it stands. The [cope and meaning of the word depends essentially on the connexion and circumstances in which it is used. If there is any presumption that the word person includes a corporation, the presumption is no more than of a slight nature and therefore, easily displaced. One has to consider the subject-matter of the particular enactment in which the word person appears and especially the immediate context in which it is used in order to decide whether that presumption will apply or whether it will not."

The ultimate decision reached by the learned Judges was that :

"The word person in Order 33, Rule 1 and so the word person in Order 44, Rule 1 does not include a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and it is not possible for and competent to such a company to sue as pauper or to prefer an appeal as pauper under Order 44, Rule 1."

In coming to this conclusion the learned Judges relied upon two English decisions, Pharmaceutical Society v. London and Provincial Supply Association, (1880) 5 A. C. 857, and Charles P. Kinnell and Co. v. Harding, Wace and Co., (1918) 1 K. B. 405. The learned Judges also relied upon the decision of the Rangoon High Court in AIR 1930 Rang 259, S. M. Mitra v. Corporation of the Royal Exchange Assurance. In (1880) 5 A. C. 857, Lord Blackburn observed that :

"I do not think that the presumption that it. (the word person) does include an artificial person, a corporation, if that is the presumption, is at all a strong one."

The view of Lord Blackburn found favour with the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court. The learned Judges, however, pointed out that the defi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document