A partnership firm is a 'person' within the meaning of Rule 1 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is entitled to sue as an indigent person subject to fulfilment of other tests.

( 1 ) THE order in this appeal shall also govern disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1989 (M/s. Nandkishore Mohanlal v. Bissesarlal Gupta and Co. and 4 others) Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1989 (M s. Nand Kishore Mohanlal v. Murlidhar Brijlal and 2 others ).

( 2 ) THE appellant, plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. In a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,05,965-70 against the respondents, since the firm was unable to pay requisite court-fee of Rs. 5405/-, it applied under Rule 1 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to sue as an indigent person, which was registered as M. J. C. No. 2 of 1977.

( 3 ) IN Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1989, the suit filed by the same plaintiff for recovery of certain amount against another set of defendant was registered as M. J. C. No. 10 of 1978. Yet in another suit for recovery of money against the respondents in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1989 the same plaintiff sought permission to sue as an indigent person. After recording evidence and receipt of a report from the Collector the trial Court permitted the plaintiff to issue as an indigent person. The suit was accordingly registered as C. S. No. 23-B of 1977.

( 4 ) ON 5-2-1985, the respondents, in this appeal moved an application under section 151 of the Code alleging that the High Court in Misc. Appeal No. 160 of 1979 held that the appellant is not an indigent person, and therefore, the application under Rule 1 of Order 33 of the Code be dismissed.

( 5 ) THE learned trial court, by separate but identical orders. rejected the applications in the two cases and dispaupered the plaintiff in the suit. Hence, the plaintiff appellant has filed these appeals.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted the finding that the plaintiffs firm is not an indigent person in M. J. C. No. 2/78 involving a claim for recovery of Rs. 63,000/-, will not necessarily mean that the plaintiff cannot file other suits as an indigent person. Counsel for the respondents argued that the firm has filed several suits involving very high stakes and applied for stay of proceedings in all the three cases on the ground that the decision in Misc. Appeal No. 160 of 1979 will have a direct impact on the issue of indigency in the three cases. The decision in that case went against him. Therefore, now he is estopped from arguing that the decision in that appeal has no bearing in the remaining cases. The finding that the plaintiff firm failed to prove that it is an indigent person must govern the disposal of the applications in these cases also. Apart from this, it was also urged that a partnership firm is not a "person" within the meaning of Explanation I to Rule 1 of Order 33 of the Code. In support of this, learned counsel submitted that definition of 'indigent person' as given in Explanations I to III before the Amendment in 1976, ran as under:"a person is a 'pauper' when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit. or, where no such fee is prescribed, when he is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject-matter of the suit. "clause (b) of Explanation I inserted by Amendment Act of 1976, though now does not mention wearing apparel of the person. provides that person would be considered an indigent person where no court-fee is prescribed for the plaint, if he is not entitled to property worth more than one thousand rupees other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the subject-matter of the suit. Proviso to section 60 of the Code, which gives a list of properties exempt from attachment and sale in execution of decree, however mentions the necessary wearing apparel. A firm cannot wear apparels. Similarly, Rule 3 of Order 33 provides that the application shall be presented to the Court by the applicant in person. The plaintiff being a fi