Mohamad Isa vs Mt. Shahmali

Kilam, J.—An application to sue as a papuper was accepted by the trial Court of the Sub-Judge Bhaderwah by its order dated 29-9-1955.

The learned Sub-Judge found that ""from the evidence led by the applicant it is established that she is a pauper and unable to pay any court-fee.

He, therefore, ordered that the applicant be permitted to sue as a pauper. The non-applicant Defendant who resisted the Plaintiff's application in

forma pauperis has now come up in revision to this Court.

The main point taken by the Defendant Petitioner before me is that the schedule of the moveable property belonging to the non-applicant (sic)

has not been verified in the manner prescribed for signing and verification of pleadings and as such in the submission of the Defendant's learned

Counsel, the application for permission to sue as pauper merited dismissal.

It may be stated here that though in the schedule of property attached to the application, the verification is not such as is conceived by Rule 2 of

Order 33, CPC yet along with the application there is an affidavit of the Plaintiff in which the schedule of the property has been stated as true. It

has to be borne in mind that in cases like the one before me we have only to see if there has been a substantial compliance with Rules 2 and 3 of

Order 33, CPC The provisions of Order 33, CPC do not warrant that these rules must be meticulously interpreted against a pauper applicant,

more so when there is no provision for the verification of the schedule. In Amar Nath v. Rattan Chand AIR 1932 Lah 548 (A) it has been held that

an application seeking permission to sue as a pauper should not be thrown out merely on the ground that the schedule has not been signed and

verified by the applicant.

This ruling proceeds on the assumption that there is no provision which makes it necessary to verify a schedule attached to an application to sue as

a pauper. But apart from this, in the case before me I find that along with the application seeking permission to sue as a pauper, there is an affidavit

of the pauper applicant in which the schedule has been stated as true. This in my opinion is a substantial compliance with Rules 2 and 5 of Order

33, CPC For this view there is ample authority. In Ashraf Ali v. Rameshwar Nath AIR 1923 Lah 684 (B) verification of the statement contained in

an application seeking permission to sue as a pauper was made by a separate affidavit and in that case the affidavit was treated as part of the

application and the verification in the affidavit was treated as sufficient.

Under these circumstances, I find no force in this revision application which is rejected without making any order as to costs.