The central legal point established in the judgment is the inherent power of the court to depart from normal procedure to suit the exigencies of the situation, particularly in the context of allowing a suit to be continued as a pauper suit.

JUDGMENT

1. On 8th January 1930 the plaintiff applied for permission to institute a suit in forma pauperis for recovery of possession of a certain property with mesne profits on a declaration that the same was wakf property and that he was the mutawalli of the wakf. He valued the suit at Rs. 5,100. The application was entertained and notices were issued on the defendant and the Government Pleader. On 8th March 1930 the defendant filed an objection in which amongst other grounds it was alleged that the market value of the property was not less than Rs. 1,25,000. On 21st June 1930 the plaintiff filed the requisite court-fee on his plaint as framed, and on that the suit was registered as an ordinary suit. On 17th September 1930 the defendant filed his written statement, and on 6th November 1930 issues were framed, one of the issues being on the question of valuation of the suit. This issue was taken up as a preliminary issue; and evidence thereon being adduced the Subordinate Judge, on 31st March 1932, assessed the market value at Rs. 75,000 and directed the plaintiff to put in the deficit court-fees within one month. This time was extended twice, by a month on each occasion, on the plaintiff's application, once on 30th April and again on 30th May 1932. On 30th June 1932 the plaintiff applied for furtber time and on that the Subordinate Judge ordered the petition to be put up for orders on 6th July 1932, on which date the plaintiff applied for permission to continue the suit as a pauper filing with the application a copy of the plaint he had already filed and valuing it at the figure which the Court had found as the value of the property. On 13th July 1932 the Subordinate Judge rejected the application of 30th June and 6th July 1932 and later on on 16th August 1932 passed two orders, one after the other, which ran thus:

No. 58. Plaintiff's application for permitting him to continue the suit in forma pauperis cannot be allowed in view of the decision of the Honourable High Court reported in Salima Sheehan v. Hafez Mahomed 1932 Cal 685 This application is rejected.

No. 59. Deficit court-fees not paid. The plaint is rejected. The plaintiff has then preferred this appeal, as from an order dated 16th August 1932, in Title Suit No. 106 of 1930, that being the number given to the suit when it was registered. Obviously it was the second order of August 1932 which has been appealed from, the validity of the first order of that date being intended to be also challenged in the appeal.

2. It is apparent that as the deficit courtfees were not paid the second order was justified by the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (c) of the Code. And the only question is whether the interposition of the application which the plaintiff made on 6th July 1932 for permission to continue the suit as a pauper makes any difference. It is also clear that if that application was rightly rejected and so was out of the way, the second order was a perfectly legitimate order passed in conformity with the provision of the Code referred to above, after the plaintiff had time not once but three times, to put in the deficit court-fees. The correctness of the first order then is the only point for our consideration. For the first order no other reason has been given than that in view of the decision in Salima Sheehan v. Hafez Mahomed 1932 Cal 685 the application to continue the suit in forma pauperis cannot be allowed. It seems fairly clear that it was on no question of merits that the learned Judge proceeded, but that he took it that having regard to the decision that he relied on, it was not open to him to allow the plaintiff to continue the suit in forma pauperis. The question to be considered is thus a pure question of law. Under Act 8 of 1859 it was held by Pontifex, J., in Nirmal Chandra v. Dyal Nath (1876) 2 Cal 130 that the power to allow a suit to be continued as a pauper suit was included in the power given to the Court, to allow a suit in forma pauperis to be institut