AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 162 wordsThe petition in so far as it is for a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to his Majesty in Council is not opposed. We certify accordingly
u/s 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The petition is further for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. In Munny Rama Awasty v. Sheo Charan Awasty (1847) 4 M.I.A. 114 Counsel
(Mr. Moore) referred generally to a practice of the courts in India granting such leave mentioning Bengal Regulation 28 of 1814. But no precedent
for its grant has been proved in this Court and the authority of decisions in other High Courts is against it. Jagadanand Asram v. Rajendra Roy
(1912) 17 C.L.J. 381 and Ramakishin Lal v. Manna Kumri (1916) Pat. L.J. 179. We respectfully adopt the grounds of the latter decision and
dismiss the petition so far as it relates to leave to appeal in forma pauperis. There will be no order as to costs.