A registered trade union is a body corporate and can sue as a pauper under Order 33, Rule 1 of the C. P. C.

1. In this case the petitioner has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif, 1st Court, Dhanbad, dated 11-2-1958, permitting the opposite party to institute a suit in forma pauperis should not be set aside by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

2. It is the admitted case that the opposite party, namely East India Coal Company Limited Workers Union is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. Sec.13 of the Indian Trade Unions Act (Act XVI of 1926) provides for the incorporation of registered trade unions and is in the following terms:

"13. Incorporation of registered Trade Unions. Every registered Trade Union shall be a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire and hold both moveable and immovable property and to contract, and shall by the said name sue and be sued". It is not disputed in this case that the plaintiff opposite party is a registered trade union and that it is a body corporate within the meaning of Sec.13 of the Indian Trade Unions Act. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a registered trade union cannot institute a suit in forma pauperis within the meaning of Order 33, Rule 1 of the C. P.C. which reads as follows: "1, Subject to the following provisions, any suit may be instituted by a pauper.

Explanation: A person is a pauper when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or, where no such fee is prescribed, when he is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject matter of the suit".

In support of his submission learned Counsel referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bharat Abhyudoy Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1938 Cal 745 in which it was held by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that the word "person" in Order 33, Rule 1 does not include a "company" incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, and it is not possible for and competent to such a company to sue as a pauper or to prefer an appeal as a pauper under the provisions of Order 44, Rule 1. A different view as regards the construction of Order 33, Rule 1 and Order 33 Rule 3 has been taken by the Madras High Court in Perumal Koundan V/s. Thirumalarayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sangha Nidhi Ltd., ILR 41 Mad 624: (AIR 1918 Mad 362).

The question which was debated in that case was whether an official liquidator of a company was competent to apply for leave to sue in forma pauperis on behalf of the company under Order 33 of the C. P. C., if the company was a pauper within the meaning of Rule 1 thereof. It was held by Kumaraswami Sastriyar, J. that the reference to necessary wearing apparel in the Explanation to Rule 1 and the provisions of Rule 3 requiring presentation of petition by applicant in person in Order 33 do not necessarily exclude the application of the order to a Company; and that the definition of "person" as including a company in the General Clauses Act applies to Order 33 of the C. P. C. as there is nothing in the definition which is repugnant to the subject matter or context of the Order.

The same view has been accepted by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Swaminathan V/s. Official Receiver, Ramnad, AIR 1937 Mad 549. It was held in that case that an official receiver, in whom the estate of an insolvent has vested under Sec.28 Clause (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act by virtue of an order of adjudication made by the Court, can institute a suit as a pauper for the recovery of the said estate provided he fulfils the conditions laid down in the Explanation to Order 33, Rule 1 of the C. P. C.

It was pointed out that the word "person" occurring in the Explanation to Order 33 Rule 1 of the C, P. C. should be construed to include both natural and leg