Chandrasekar Missir and Others vs Harihar Sahu and Others

Agarwala, J.—The material facts are that on 28th November 1940 the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the Court below, was ordered to pay deficit court fees by 9th December. The order went on to direct that as a result of failure to pay the deficiency on that date the suit would stand dismissed. The court-fee was not paid by 9th December, but on 16th December, the plaintiff applied for leave to sue in forma pauperis. This application has been rejected by the Court below without investigating whether the plaintiff is a pauper or not. The Court below considered that the application was not bona fide but merely an attempt to gain further time.

It is now contended in revision that the Court is bound to hear the plaintiff''s evidence regarding his pauperism and acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in dismissing the application without investigating the question of the plaintiff''s pauperism.

On behalf of the opposite party, it is contended that as a result of the order of 28th November, the suit stood rejected on 9th December, and from that time the Court was functus officio and could not entertain the application of 16th December. To that the petitioner replies that between 9th and 16th December, the plaintiff made certain applications for amendment of the plaint and that the Court from day to day postponed the consideration of these applications at the request of the plaintiff. In my opinion, it was immaterial that the plaintiff made these applications for amendment of the plaint. At no time had the Court modified its order that the suit would stand rejected on 9th December, if the court-fees were not paid on that day. On that date, the suit must be regarded as having been rejected and it follows, therefore, that after that date the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis. This application is dismissed: hearing-fee one gold mohur.