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
3 paragraphs · 232 wordsJames, J.—This is an application for revision of the order of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya permitting the opposite party to sue as a pauper. The Subordinate Judge has found that the opposite party is in possession of ornaments worth Rs. 412; but on the authority of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Revn. No. 544 of Mabia Khatun Vs. Sheikh Satkari and Others, he has held that these ornaments are to be classed as necessary wearing apparel within the meaning of Order 33, Rule 1. On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued that a more correct view of the matter was taken by the Lahore High Court in Lal Chand v. Mt. Pisto A.I.R (1928) Lah. 271 wherein the Calcutta decision was criticized.
If this matter were before me in appeal, I doubt whether I should find myself able to hold that a certain amount of metal about a woman''s person is to be classed as necessary wearing apparel when she is posing as a pauper; but I do not consider that it can be said that the learned Subordinate Judge acted illegally ''or with material irregularity when he adopted that view.
I do not consider that we have any authority to interfere in revision with his order declaring the opposite party a pauper; and this application is dismissed. I make no order for costs.