1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether the first respondent, a limited company ("respondent" for short), is entitled to sue as an indigent person under O. XXXIII, R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are thus. The respondent filed a suit before the Sub Court, Kochi, and sought permission to sue as an indigent person. The appellant herein raised objections and contended that the plaintiff being a public limited company was not a 'person' coming within the purview of O. XXXIII, R.1 CPC, and the word 'person' referred to therein applies only to a natural person and not to other juristic persons. The Subordinate Judge permitted the respondent-plaintiff to sue as an indigent person. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a Revision and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court Editor's Note : Judgment reported in 1999 (2) KLT 274 and that judgment of the High Court is assailed in this appeal.

3. We heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, learned senior Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that under 0. XXIII, R.1 an Explanation has been given as to who shall be an'indigent person' and it was pointed out that an 'indigent person' is one who is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit; or where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the subject-matter of the suit. It was further pointed out that prior to the amendment of R.1 of the O. XXXIII, CPC, an indigent person' was mentioned in the Explanation to R.1 of O. XXXIII as a person who is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject-matter of the suit, and this according to the appellant's Counsel, indicated the 'person' mentioned in R.1 of O. XXXIII which refers only to natural person and not other juridical person. It was also submitted by the appellant's Counsel that under R.3 of O. XXXIII, the application to sue as an indigent person shall be presented to the Court by the applicant in person unless he is exempted from appearing in court in which case the application may be presented by an authorised agent. According to the appellant's Counsel, a public limited company being a juristic person cannot present an application in accordance with R.3 of O.XXXIII. It was submitted that under R.3, the person who is presenting the application must be such person who can answer all material questions relating to the application and therefore, the scheme of O. XXXIII of the CPC envisages only a natural person to file a suit as an indigent person.

4. The Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that a suit can be filed as an indigent person not only by natural persons but also by all juristic persons who are permitted to file a suit in that capacity. It was contended that O. XXXIII is a benevolent provision intended to help the litigants who are unable to pay the court fee at the initial stage and that the said provision is to be construed liberally. It was submitted that when a company, firm, deity, etc. are permitted to file a suit in their juristic capacity, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to sue as an indigent person. Counsel argued that the definition of the word 'person' contained in the General Clauses Act will apply and that extended meaning is to be attributed to the word 'person' referred to in O. XXXIII.

5. Reference was made to series of decisions on the subject. A survey of the various decisions would show that the preponderance of the view is that the word 'person' referred to in O. XXXIII includes a juristic person also