Chemical and Plastics India Ltd. vs Karisiammal and Others

Abdul Hadi, J.—The 2nd defendant is the revision petitioner herein. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P. No. 280 of 1988, out of which this

revision arises, for permitting them to sue as indigent persons. The said original petition was allowed and against the said decision, this civil revision

petition has been filed by the 2nd defendant/2nd respondent in the original petition.

In the original petition, the Government did not file any counter or any report, stating that the O.P. petitioners have any property. No doubt, the

contention of the revision petitioner in the original petition is that the O.P. petitioners have got properties, but that the said fact had been

suppressed. Even assuming it to be true, the revision petitioner cannot be called an aggrieved party against the order that has been passed. It has

also been held in Kalimuthu Servai and Others Vs. Govindaswami Servai and Another, , that the true principle in all cases of granting leave to sue

in forma pauperis is that it is primarily for the State to challenge the correctness of such orders as it is the State which is mainly interested in the

payment of the Court-fee and that the High Court will not normally interfere in revision against such orders at the instance of the parties to the

dispute. In the said case, the State actually filed objections and yet this Court declined to interfere in the revision petition filed by the defendant.

Therefore, there is no merit in this civil revision petition and hence it is not admitted, but dismissed.