The word 'person' in Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C includes juridical person, allowing a company to invoke the provisions and file a suit in forma pauperis.

Respondents 1 to 3 in P.O.P.No.I of 1990, Sub Court Kochi are the revision petitioners. The petitioner and respondents 4 to 8 in P.O.P.No.1/90 are the respondents here in. /The first respondent herein as plaintiff, has laid the suit praying for a decree for a sum of Rs303.13 crores as damages for the breach of promise from the defendants. The first respondent/ plaintiff is a public limited company. It is represented by its Director and Power of Attorney Holder. The suit was laid in forma pauperis. A sum of Rs.39,31A 950/- is required as court fee for filing the suit. Stating that the plaintiff/ petitioner (1st respondent herein) has no means to pay the required court fee, the suit was laid in forma pauperis by invoking the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. The respondents in P.O.P. No.1/90 resisted the claim of the plaintiff. Amongst others, the plea was taken that the suit is an experimental one, that the suit filed by the plaintiff (1st respondent herein) which is a company, will not lie, that the provisions ofO.33R.1 C.P.C. can be invoked only by a natural person, that the petitioner in P.O.P. No.1/90, a company, cannot invoke the provisions of 0.33 R. I C.P.C. and the petitioner cannot be entertained. The court below, by a detailed order dated 21-11-1991, held that it is open to the petitioner to sue the defendants in forma pauperis and the plea to the contrary by the respondents is without force. In coming to the said conclusion, the Court below relied on the Bench decision of this Court in Mathew v. Kerala United Corporation Ltd, (1961 KLT 45) and reference was made to some other decisions also. The plea of the respondents, that the claim in the petition is exorbitant and the suit filed for an estimated profit by way of damages will not lie, was negatived by the court below, in paragraph 15 of its order Respondents 1 to 3 in the court below have come up in revision and assail the order of the court below dated 21-11-1991.

2. I heard counsel. Mr. P. Balagangadhara Menon, senior counsel who appeared for the revision-petitioners, argued that the Bench decision of this Court, reported in 1961 KLT 45 (Matnew's case), requires reconsideration. Counsel submitted that in the above Bench decision, the court was swayed by English decisions, which have only a persuasive value, as stated by the Supreme Court in American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1986 SC 137). It was further submitted that the decisions to the contrary in S.M. Mitra v. Corporation of the Royal Exchange Assurance (AIR 1930 Rangoon 259 ); Associated Pictures Ltd. v. The National Studios Ltd. (AIR 1951 Punj. 447) and B.A. Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Kameswar Singh (AIR 1938 Cal.745) were not properly understood and given effect to in the aforesaid Bench decision. Counsel pleaded that the above decision requires reconsideration.

3. I am unable to accept the plea of the revision-petitioners. In Mathew's case (1961 KLT 45), the Division Bench held that the word "person" in Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C includes juridical person also. In coming to the said conclusion, the Bench relied on the decisions of the Rangoon, Madras, Hyderabad, Nagpur High Courts, besides the English decision reported in Pharmaceutical Society v. London and Provincial Supply Association (5A.C.857atp.861). One of the decisions relied on for interpreting the word "person" occurring in Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. was the decision of the Madras High Court in Perumal Goundan v. Thirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd. (AIR 1918 Mad. 362). The above Madras decision was cited with approval by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Nagpur Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. v. K. Shreepathirao (AIR 1958 S.C. 658 at p. 663 - para.14). The subsequent decisions of the Bombay, Gujarat, Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts are also in accord with the Bench decision of this Court in Mathew's case (1961 KLT 45) --See -- Gendalal Cotton Mills v. Basanf Kumaribai (AIR