The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Order 7 Rule 11, Civil P.C. in the context of the plaintiff's failure to pay the required court fees, and the discussion of the applicability of Order 33 in continuing a suit as a pauper.

JUDGMENT

Costello, J. - This Rule was obtained on behalf of one Salina Sheehan who is the defendant in a suit brought against her by Hafez Mohommed Fateh Nashib, the opposite party in these proceedings. The Rule was directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, 24-Pargannas, on 2nd December 1931.

2. It appears that the suit out of which this matter arises, was brought by Hafez Mohammad Fateh Nashib on the allegation that he was entitled to be the muttawali of certain properties of which a house No. 1, Store Road, Ballygunge, in the possession of the defendant Selina Sheehan is said to have formed part. We are told that, in fact, Mrs. Sheehan has been in possession of this particular property for a space of something like 12 years. She purchased it from certain persons and subsequently there was a suit in the Alipur Court the judgment in which in effect decided that the property in question had been lawfully alienated and acquired by Mrs. Sheehan. In the present suit we are not concerned with the actual merits of the case. The plaintiff had originally, for the purposes of court-fees, put a valuation upon the property in dispute of Rs. 5,100 and upon that footing he had paid appropriate court-fees. The defendant took exception to that and accordingly there was an investigation into the question of valuation as a preliminary issue in the suit, and as a result of the proceedings the Court came to the conclusion that the right valuation was Rs. 60,000 and the appropriate ad valorem court-fees ought to be levied accordingly. In his judgment which the learned Subordinate Judge gave on 3rd September 1931, after taking evidence and hearing the parties upon the matter, he says:

In my opinion therefore the suit has been greatly under-valued and court-fees paid are insufficient. In this view of the matter the plaintiff will be required to pay the deficit court-fees on the value of Rs. 55,000.

3. That value of Rs. 55,000 is of course the difference between the value which the learned Subordinate Judge found to be a correct value and the value which the plaintiff himself had originally put upon the property. The order concludes thus: "The plaintiff is directed to pay the same within a month from date."

4. There was a further direction that the matter should come up again before him on 2nd October 1931. On that date the plaintiff instead of paying the amount required, put in an application for further time within which to pay the additional court-fees, and after hearing the parties the learned Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiff farther time until 17th November 1931. Again on that date the plaintiff failed to pay the court-fees required and once more he put in an application. On this occasion, however he said that he had no means to pay the full court-fees and therefore he had filed a petition to get himself declared a paupor and he also asked for a stay of further proceedings pending the disposal of the application. The Subordinate Judge thereupon made an order that the matter would be considered on 23rd November 1931. After two further adjournments the matter was finally adjudicated upon on 2nd December 1931. On that date the learned Subordinate Judge made an order in these terms;

Heard both sides. Plaintiff has failed to pay the court-fees required as ordered by the Court. The natural consequence for such failure is ordinarily this; that the plaint should be struck off, but here the plaintiff has filed an application to continue the suit as a paupar. If his application for being declared a pauper for the purpose of the suit be allowed, he will be at liberty to continue the suit as a pauper. In such circumstances, I think, the suit should not be dismissed but kept in abeyance till the disposal of the pauper application.

5. He added: " put up the suit for orders when the pauper application is disposed of." Now it is with regard to that order that the defendant has moved this Court and she says, that that order ought not to