Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam and Another vs Smt. Sudama Devi

S.K. Phaujdar, J.—Learned counsel for both the sides are present.

Heard.

The present revision application is directed against an order of the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, dated 9.1.1995 in Suit No. 455 of 1994 by which the learned court below had allowed an application of the Plaintiff-opposite party to sue as an Indigent person. The Defendants press this application on the ground that the order was obtained by suppression of material facts regarding assets of the Plaintiff and. as such, the court had assumed a jurisdiction which could not have been exercised.

For entertaining a revision u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court is to see whether any jurisdictional error had been committed as indicated in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 115, but the proviso to this sub-section further directs that the High Court shall not, u/s 115, vary or reverse any order made, except where the order if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or the order if allowed to stand would occasion on failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. When the Plaintiff applied for permission to issue as an indigent person, the Defendants raised an objection and the objection was overruled. If the order had gone in favour of the Defendants, it could have only meant that the Plaintiff would not be permitted to sue as an indigent person, but that could not have finally disposed of the suit. Moreover, it was a question of payment of certain court fee only, which could at the proper time be realised from the Plaintiff and it cannot be deemed to occasion a failure of Justice or to cause an irreparable injury to the Defendants.

A case-law has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent stating that it was a matter between the State and the Plaintiff and a private Defendant had no authority to challenge the order. Reference was made to Sri Ratnavaramaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla, . The Supreme Court ruled in this case that on the question of court fee on plaint, the Defendant had no grievance and, accordingly, had no right of revision.

Without any reference to the merits of the case, whether the Plaintiff should or should not have been granted the right to sue as an indigent person, I hold that the revision application is incompetent and is accordingly dismissed.