( 1 ) THIS revision application under Section 115, Civil P. C. is directed against an order of the civil Judge of Gonda dated 6-12-1914, rejecting the application of the applicants for leave to sue in forma pauperis.

( 2 ) IT appears that the applicants claimed title to succeed as reversioners to the property of one sheo Dayal upon the death of his daughter Ganesha in 1932. The case put forward in the plaint was that Sheo Dayal died in 1865 leaving two widows Maharani and Rani. The former died in 1888 and the latter in 1908. Upon the death of Rani, Ganesha succeeded to the property which she held till her death in 1932. The defts. to the suit were some of the descendants of Ganesha and some transferees from her. The suit was brought in 1944. An application under Order XXXIII, rule 1, Civil P. C. was made on the ground that the applicants were paupers and were unable to pay the court-fee which, according to the valuation fixed in the plaint, came to a sum of Rs. 2, 143/12. The value of the property set out in the schedule attached to the application was a sum of rs. 250 in addition to some tenancy holdings. One of the applicants Maharaj Bali was examined in support of the application. In his statement Maharaj Bali stated that Sheo Dayal had a son Jai ram, who survived him. He also stated that he owned some utensils which he had not shown in the schedule of assets and a decree against one Bishwa Nath for costs for Rs. 250. This was brought out in the cross-examination of Maharaj Bali. The statement was made on 2-12-1944, and the Ct. reserved orders for December 5.

( 3 ) ON December 4 Maharaj Bali filed an application stating that he had by an oversight mentioned that Jai Ram survived Sheo Dayal. As a matter of fact he should have stated that he had predeceased his father. Maharaj Bali also prayed that a copy of the judgment between him and ganesha which supported him in this respect might be allowed to be admitted.

( 4 ) THE Court pronounced orders on 6-12-1944 dismissing the application for pauperism. Relying upon the evidence of Maharaj Bali to the effect that Sheo Dayals son Jai Ram survived him, the court held that upon this statement the plffs. appets. had no cause of action. The Ct. further held that the applicants had not shown the decree for Rs. 250 against Bishwanath in the schedule filed by them and relying upon a decision in Kuppuswami Naidu v. Varadappa Naidu, A. I. R. (30)1943 Mad. 11 the Ct. took the view that this amounted to a fraudulent suppression of assets and must, therefore, result in the dismissal of the application. Both these points have been challenged before as in revision.

( 5 ) SO far as the first point is concerned, it is not necessary to deal with the matter at any length for the Counsel for the opposite parties is unable to support the view of the lower Court on that point.

( 6 ) AS regards the second point, it has been contended before us that the decree for costs of of Rs. 250 was obtained by the applicants against a pauper and that even if that decree had been included in the schedule, it would not have made any material difference to the question of pauperism for the applicants were required, according to the plaint, to pay a sum of Rs. 2,143/12 as court-fee. We are of opinion that there is no substance in this contention. Order XXXIII, Rule 2, Civil P. C. required that an application for pauperism shall contain a schedule of the moveable or immoveable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof. By Rule 5 it is provided that the Court shall reject the application for permission to sue as a pauper where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rules 2 and 3. The language used in these two rules appears to suggest that the provision is mandatory in its nature. The Madras High court in Kuppuswami Naidu v. Varadappa Naidu, A. I. R. (30) 1943 Mad 11 ruled that in an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis the utmost bona fide is required of the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document