Govinda Menon, J.-O.P. No. 302 of 1951 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. was an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis to recover eleven items of properties filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that a certain decree and proceedings thereunder were void and not binding on him. The learned Subordinate Judge issued notice to the opposite party and the Government Pleader and directed that such evidence as the applicant may adduce to prove that the applicant is not subject to any of the prohibitions contained in rule 5 of Order 33, Civil Procedure Code, would be received as also the evidence which may be adduced by the opposite parties to the contrary. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents was that the whole claim of the applicant has become barred by limitation. Against this contention the petitioner herein urged that that question cannot be gone into at this stage as the only question before the Court at the stage before the application for leave to sue as a pauper is registered and numbered as a regular suit was whether the petitioner was a pauper and whether on the averments in the plaint the petitioner had a valid cause of action. The learned Subordinate Judge heard arguments on the point in controversy and holding that he was bound by the rulings of this Court to the effect that it was open to the respondent to adduce evidence regarding the plea of limitation directed the matter to be posted for letting in evidence. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner has come up in revision. It is necessary to-refer in brief outline to the provisions of Order 33 as originally enacted in the Civil. Procedure Code, 1908, as well as to the amendment made therein by the Madras High Court and find out what the object of the amendment is. Rule 1 of Order 33, Civil Procedure Code, lays down that a suit may be instituted in forma pauperis by a person who is a pauper and there is a definition as to who is a pauper. Rule 2 deals with particulars that an application for permission to sue as a pauper should contain and that is followed by rule 3 which lays down the necessary requisites for the presentation of the application. When the application is presented under rule 3 the further procedure is, the Court is empowered, if it thinks fit, to examine the applicant or his agent when the applicant is allowed to appear by agent regarding the merits of the claim and the property of the applicant. This is intended to prevent frivolous applications at the instance of paupers who have recourse to Courts of law not to ventilate their legitimate grievances but to harass their opponents. The Court shall reject the application for permission to sue as a pauper if it is satisfied on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-clauses (a) and (e) of rule 5. We are not concerned in this Civil Revision Petition with the sub-rules (a) to (d) or (e). Sub-rules (a) to (c) and (e) have not undergone any change at the hands of the Madras High Court. They remain in the original form in which they have been enacted in the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. In the unamended Code, sub-clause (d) ran as follows:-

“Where his allegations do not show a cause of action”.

After amendment the word ‘his’ has been substituted by the word ‘the’ We are not concerned with that sub-clause also. Sub-clause (d-1) has been introduced by the Madras amendment which is to the following effect: “Where the suit appears to be barred by any law”.

The result of this new sub-rule is that if the Court is satisfied that the suit is barred by any law, it can reject the application for permission to sue as a pauper after examining the applicant only without hearing the other side. That is at the time the applicant is examined if after a perusal of the allegations contained in the application the Court sue motu is satisfied that the proposed suit is barred by any law then the application can be rejected. This amendment was introduced in Madras in 1940. The stage

Click Here to Read the rest of this document