Bench:
Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien
Appellant:
M. L. Sethi
Respondent:
R. P. Kapur
Issues
On the application of the defendant, the Court may dispauper the plaintiff on the grounds set forth in Order 33, rule 9, one of which is that his means are such that he should not continue to litigate as a pauper. Order 33, Rule 6 confers on the opposing party the opportunity to participate in the pauperism inquiry and adduce evidence to prove that the applicant is not a pauper unless the opposing party is interested in the subject and entitled to use all of the regular procedures to establish it?
Facts
- On April 29, 1962, the respondent filed an in forma pauperis suit against the appellant and his wife, seeking damages in the amount of Rs. 7,48,000/- for malicious prosecution.
- Under Order 33, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, a notice of the petition to suit in forma pauperis was provided to the State Government and the appellant.
- Both the Government and the appellant objected to the respondent's status as a pauper. Following that, the appellant filed a motion for discovery of papers from the respondent in order to establish that the respondent is not a pauper.
- On February 23, 1970, the Court issued an order directing the respondent to produce on affidavit all documents relating to the respondent's bank accounts, including passbooks, cheque books, counterfoils, and other items, from March 1, 1963, to the date of filing the affidavit of discovery, as well as documents relating to the respondent's properties and personal accounts.
- The affidavit was not filed by the respondent in accordance with the order
- On March 31, 1970, he filed an application with the High Court, claiming that he wishes to file a revision against the order of February 23, 1970, and that two months be permitted for this reason. On April 4, 1970, the Court denied the motion for extension of time, stating that the application for authorization to suit in forma pauperis had been pending for seven years and that the respondent had adequate time to file the revision if he was diligent.
- On the same day, the respondent's lawyer filed another application, claiming that the respondent wishes to provide evidence and that the matter may be adjourned because he had not attended to Court in the assumption that his earlier plea for adjournment, dated March 31, 1970, would be granted.
- The Court also turned down this application. The Court dismissed the application for permission to use in Forma Pauperis and ordered the respondent to pay the court fee within 15 days because counsel for the respondent did not report any instructions and there was no proof that the respondent was a pauper.
- In revision before the High Court, the respondent contested the orders requiring document discovery on February 23, 1970, and rejected his application for authorization to sue in forma pauperis on April 4, 1970.
Appellant’s contentions
- Even if the order for document discovery was illegal, counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court was not warranted in interfering with it. And, as to the order dated April 4, 1970, dismissing the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis after rejecting the application for time, it can be said that the High Court was really interfering with the trial Court's adjournment discretion. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 115 of the C.P.C. is limited.
- Respondent’s contentions
- The respondent argued that the technique for document discovery is not authorised in proceedings under Order 33 and that even if it were, it would be counterproductive to use it. This Court held in Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh and others that "the litigation begins when an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis as required by Order 33 is filed." If that is the case, the discovery rules of Rule 12 of Order 11 would apply to actions under Order 33.
Relevant paragraphs ( last paragraph of the original judgement )
- The order for discovery was issued by the trial court, which had jurisdiction. Even if every material error of law—even an error of law within the jurisdiction in the fundamental understanding of the term—is presumed to result in lack of jurisdiction, we do not believe the order was vitiated by any error of law.
- Even in its broadest sense, the denial of the application for time and, as a result, the dismissal of the petition for permission to litigate in forma pauperis, can scarcely be described as a jurisdictional error, as previously explained. We're likewise not convinced that the refusal to adjourn resulted in any breach of natural justice, rendering the decree null and void.
- There is also no evidence that the Court acted improperly or with serious irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in dismissing the motion for time.
Final Order
- As a result, we would set aside the High Court's ruling and grant the appeal, but issue no costs order in the circumstances. This ruling has no bearing on the legality of the High Court order dated August 26, 1971, requiring the respondent to remove the appellant's wife's name from the list of parties.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
