1967 Supreme(Bom) 122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Nain J.N., J.
Appellants: Harisingh Isharsingh
Vs.
Respondent: Chandansingh Pratapsingh and Anr.
Civil Revn. Appln. No. 1975 of 1964 Decided On: 14.11.1967
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.N. Kothari, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: C.R. Dalvi, Asst. Govt. Pleader and B.D. Balraj, Adv.
(2) The petitioner has come in revision against the above order of the Registrar of the Bombay City Civil Court. His principal argument is that this land in which he owns 1/4th share is the only means of his livelihood and that apart from income of this land, he has no other means of livelihood and therefore his share in this land should not be taken into computation in arriving at his means. In my opinion, this contention cannot be upheld. In the first place, it has not been established that the income from this land is the only means of livelihood of the petitioner. In the second place even if this had been established, there is no exemption under O. 33, R. 1, in respect of such property of a person, who wishes to sue in forma pauperis, the income of which is the sole means of livelihood. Such property is also not exempt from attachment under the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3) Apart from this, the Registrar of the City Civil Court undoubtedly had jurisdiction to hold whether the petitioner was a pauper or not. No question of jurisdiction being involved, the revision application is not competent.
(4) Accordingly, I dismiss the revision application with costs. The petitioner is allowed to pay the proper court fee on the plaint within 30 days from the date of this order. If the court fee is not paid the pauper petition shall stand dismissed with costs.
(5) Rule discharged.
(6) Petition dismissed.