ORDER:- This is an application by the plaintiff Anoop Chand for leave to file a first appeal in forma pauperis against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City dated 30-4-1952. The applicants suit in the trial Court was that the defendant Ram Das had borrowed from him Rs.6,000/- and agreed to mortgage his property and execute a mortgage deed. It was alleged that the defendant had failed to keep his promise and therefore, it was prayed that either a decree for the specific performance of the contract relating to the execution of the mortgage deed be passed against the defendant or, in the alternative a decree for Rs.6,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent P. A. with costs be given against him.

2. The defendant Ram Das traversed the suit saying that he did not sign the agreement dated 12-2-1948 put forward by the plaintiff, that his signatures were obtained only on a blank paper by coercion and that he had not obtained any loan from the plaintiff. The trial Court found the case in favour of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff, therefore, wants to prefer an appeal to this Court. In the trial Court he had paid the court-fees but now he says that whatever money he had in his possession he had lent it to the defendant, that he could not pay even the costs of the decree of the trial Court, that the defendant, therefore, got his belongings attached and now he is not left with anything except some clothes and utensils worth about Rs.50/-.

3. The defendant-opposite party has challenged the application saying that the petitioner is not a pauper. Learned advocate for the opposite party has further raised the following two preliminary objections.

"1. Firstly that the application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis has not been verified according to O.6, R.15, Civil P.C., and, therefore, it should be rejected under O.44, R.1 read with O.33, R.5, Civil P.C. and

2. Secondly that the decree is not contrary to law or some usage having the force of law, nor is it otherwise erroneous or unjust."

4. Regarding the first objection, it has been pointed out by the learned advocate for the opposite party that although the application bears the verification, the applicant has vaguely stated that he "endorses on oath that the application is ture to his knowledge and belief.

5. It is urged that according to O.6, R.15, Civil P.C., the applicant ought to have stated as a which paragraph of the application he verified of his own knowledge and which paragraph he verified by information received from others and believed to be true and that since the verification was not in the proper manner this Court had no option but to reject the application under O.44, R.1 read with O.33, R.5, Civil P.C. The applicants learned advocate has not been able to justify the propriety of the verification strictly according to law as provided under O.6, R.15, Civil P.C., but he says that this is after all a technical error and that since his client is prepared to correct it immediately, the application should not be rejected and he should be permitted to make the necessary amendment.

6. Learned advocate for the opposite party contends that the provisions of O.33, R.5, Civil P.C., are mandatory and no such permission for amendment can be allowed under the law. In support of his arguments, he has referred to the case of - Narsiah v. Vithalingam Thingandas, 16 Ind Cas 83 (LB) (A). In that case the District Judge had rejected the plaintiffs application for permission to sue as a pauper on account of the defective verification thereof. On the plaintiffs application in revision in the Lower Burma Chief Court, it was held that

"Order 33, Rule 5, Civil P.C. leaves no option in such a case and the Court is bound to reject the application."

7. In another case of - Pe Kye Maung v. Shwe Zin, AIR 1929 Rang 128 (2) (B), a similar view was expressed by Maung Ba, Judge to the effect that

"Rule 5, O.33 leaves the Court no discretion but to reject the appl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document