SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1943 Supreme(Mad) 162

HORWILL
Subramaniam Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Kavundappa Goundan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horwill, J.

1. The petitioners filed an application in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore to sue in forma pauperis. After notice to the respondents and examining certain documents produced by the parties, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the mortgage on which the petitioners wished to sue had been discharged. He therefore dismissed their application, although he found that in fact they were paupers and unable to pay the court-fee....

2. If the Court is to dismiss an application to sue in forma pauperis on the ground that there is no subsisting cause of action, it must be able to draw that conclusion from the allegations in the plaint itself. It may be permissible to read with the plaint the documents referred to in the plaint, but the Court should not travel beyond the plaint and perhaps these documents. The learned advocate for the respondents says that the learned Subordinate Judge has not done that; but it does appear from the very long discussion of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge that he thought that he was at liberty to consider any evidence that might be adduced bearing on the question that was in is


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top