ORDER :- This revision application is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Dhoraji, refusing leave to the petitioner to sue in forma pauperis. The suit was filed by the petitioner against her sisters and others for partition and possession of her share from the joint family properties belonging to the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. As the petitioner was not in a position to pay court-fees, she applied for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The trial court after hearing the evidence of the petitioner refused permission as the trial court found that the petitioner was residing with her husband who has sufficient properties to pay court-fees in question. This order of the trial court la the subject-matter of this revision before me.

2. At the time of hearing of the revision application Mr. P.K. Parekh the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that the learned civil Judge has failed to exercise his jurisdiction by inquiring into something not directed by the Legislature and has failed to make inquiry which the legislature directed him to do. In submission of Mr. Parekh the learned civil Judge was clearly. In error in refusing leave on the ground that the petitioner's husband was the owner of sufficient properties and therefore, the petitioner was in a position to pay the court-fees in question. On behalf of the respondents. Mr. S.M. Shah the learned advocate urged before me that this court should not in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code interfere with the finding of the trial Court Mr. Shah has to support of his contention drawn my attention to the decision of Supreme Court in Shri M.L. Sethi v. Shri H.P. Kapur. (1972) 2 SCC 427 : (AIR 1972 SC 2379). where the Supreme Court was concerned with an order made by the High Court remanding the matter to fee trial court for purposes of holding a fresh Inquiry into the question of pauperism after allowing certain applications made by the pauper for discovery of certain documents, his Lordship Methew, J. speaking for the Court referred to the various decisions of the Supreme Court and tried to analyse and distinguish between the jurisdictional fact and non-jurisdictional fact in that connection a reference was made to Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission. (1969) 2 AC 147. The paragraphs from the judgements of Lord Reid and Lord Pearce were quoted and which read as under -

"But there are many cases where although the tribunal had jurisdiction to enter on the enquiry it has done or failed to do something in the course of the enquiry which is of such a nature that its decision is a nullity. It may have given its decision in bad faith. It may have made a decision which it had no power to make. It may have failed in course of the enquiry to comply with the requirements of natural justice. It may in perfect good faith have misconstrued the provisions giving it power to act so that it failed to deal with the question remitted to it and decided some question which was not remitted to it. It may have refused to take into account something which it was required to take under the provisions setting it up it had no right, to take into account. I do not intend this list to be exhaustive."

3. In the same case. Lord Pearce said :-

"Lack of jurisdiction may arise in various ways. There may be an absence of those formalities or things which are conditions precedent to the tribunal having any jurisdiction to embark on an enquiry. Or the tribunal may at the end make an order that it has no jurisdiction to make. Or in the intervening stage while engaged on a proper enquiry, the tribunal may depart from the rules of natural justice; or it may ask itself the wrong questions; or it may take into account matters which it was not directed to take into account. Thereby it would step outside its jurisdiction. It would turn its inquiry into something not directed by Parliament and fail to make the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document