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

1967 Supreme(Pat) 17

U.N.SINHA, R.K.CHOUDHARY, R.L.NARASIMHAM
Ramashrey Roy – Appellant
Versus
Pashupati Kumar Pathak – Respondent


Judgment

R.L.Narasimham, J.

1. These two revision petitions arise out of two orders dated the 14th July, 1964, and 1st May, 1965, passed by the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Patna, under the following circumstances. The first party opposite parties had filed an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis and the same was registered as Pauper Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1963.

On the 18th January 1961, the court rejected the prayer for permission to sue in forma pauperis and dismissed the miscellaneous case on contest with costs. A civil revision application to the High Court, Civil Revision No. 514 of 1964 was also refected on the 15th May, 1964. Then, on the 13th June, 1964, these members of the opposite party filed a petition before the court, praying that the original pauper application should be treated as a plaint and that they should be given an opportunity to pay the necessary court-fee. It was further alleged that the original valuation of the disputed property given as Rs. 1,00,000 may be amended to Rs. 14,000 only. They also filed the necessary court-fee of Rs. 1350 on the amended valuation on the 8th July, 1964. Then, on the 14th July, 1964, the court passed an ord


















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