Abdul Latif vs Union of India (UOI)

H. Deka, C.J.—These three rules were obtained by the petitioner who failed in the matter of obtaining leave to sue in forma pauper�s in regard to three suits that he instituted in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Jorhat. The petitioner is an ex-employee of the Railway and he sued the Union of India as the owner of the North-Eastern Railway for compensation in regard to three different sums. The Court after coming to the finding that the petitioner had sufficient means at his disposal to pay the court-fees, rejected those applications by his order dated 16th April 1960 and that order by itself was complete. On the same day the court passed Anr. order numbered as Order No. 15 in the order sheet which was in the following words: "Prayer to sue as a pauper is rejected. Petitioner to pay the court-fee by 16-5-60." The-petitioner thereafter failed to pay the court-fee on 16-5-60 and the subsequent order was passed on the 24th May 1960 by which the plaint was rejected as no court-fee was paid for which purpose time was extended up to 16-5-60. The petitioner urges that it was not obligatory for him to pay court-fees-after his application to sue in forma pauper�s was rejected and the Court could not on that ground reject the plaint, even if the deficit court-fee was not paid.

Order 33, Rule 15, CPC is pertinent in this respect and it lays down as follows:

An order refusing to allow the application to sue as a pauper shall be a bar to any subsequent application of the like nature by him in respect of the same right to sue; but the applicant shall be at liberty to institute a suit in the ordinary manner in respect of such right, provided that he first pays the costs (if any) incurred by the State Government; and by opposite party in opposing his application for leave to sue as a pauper.

This provision entirely covers the situation, namely that it would be within the competence of the Court to grant time u/s 149 of the CPC to pay court-fees if there is a prayer to that effect. In the alternative, the party might enjoy the liberty of instituting a fresh suit in the ordinary manner on payment of the costs (if any) incurred by the State Government and by the opposite party in opposing his application for leave to sue as pauper. In the present case unless there be a prayer to continue the suit on the plaint as already filed, there could be no rejection of the plaint, -- but the Court might direct it to be returned, if presented with the application for leave, which has been refused.

Mr. Medhi for the opposite party has contended before me that since the latter order (Order No. 15) of 16-4-60 could be read as a part of tire previous order rejecting the application to sue in forma pauperis, --- this order should be considered to be an integral part of the order refusing leave to sue in forma pauperis and as extension of time for registration of the plaint. The petitioner on the other hand contends that he did not indicate to the Court any intention off continuing the suits as presented. Therefore, the court was under no obligation to pass an order extending time for payment of deficit court-fees.

In the present circumstances I think it was not open to the Court to reject the plaint for non-payment of court-fees, unless the petitioner wanted to proceed with the suits as presented. There is nothing on the record to show that the party applied for extension, of time for paying court-fees. Therefore the matters ought to have ended along with the rejection of the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis and further rejection of the plaint was not called for. I accordingly direct that the order of 24th May 1960 should be vacated and the rights of the petitioner as provided, under Rule 15 of Order 33 , CPC still remains. With this modification of the order I discharge the rule. I make no order as to costs.