Swaminatha Pillai vs Balasubrahmanya Udayar

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.—The question for consideration In these two petitions is whether an order passed by the, District Judge,

Tiruchirapalli, under Order 44, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, rejecting two petitions to entertain pauper appeals, against the judgments and

decrees in O. S. Nos. 37 and 40 of 1949 on the file of the A.D.M., Tiruchirapalli, after bearing the counsel for the petitioner, can be interfered

with and set aside in revision simply because the points urged, by the learned counsel who appeared for this petitioner in the two O. Ps, are not set

out and discussed, and the order simply runs as follows:

I see no reason for ''thinking that the decision of the lower Court is contrary to law or is otherwise erroneous. Petition rejected.

Mr. Vydianatha Aiyar, for the petitioner in both the civil revision petitions, relied on the ruling In ''Chennamma in re: 53 Mad 245. There, it was

held by a Bench of this Court, consisting of Venkatasubba Rao and Madhavan Nair, JJ., that it was not enough if the order rejecting the petition

to'' file the pauper appeal simply quoted the words of ''the proviso to Order 44. Rule 1, C.P.C., and that an applicant should be granted leave to

file a pauper appeal in case'' he showed that he had ''prima facie'' it good case. But, here, the fact remains that the learned District Judges heard the

counsel for the petitioner, and came to the conclusion that the petitions should be rejected, thereby showing that in his opinion the petitioner had

''prima facie no good case in either of the proposed appeals.

It has been held by a later Bench of this Court, in ''Narayana Rao v. Veerayya'' 56 Mad 323 that the proviso to Order 44, Rule 1, is mandatory

and that it only contemplates a perusal of the application, the judgment and the decree by the appellate Judge and nothing else, and that unless in

the opinion of the appellate Judge the decree is contrary to law or otherwise erroneous or unjust he-is bound to dismiss the application; and that

Order 44 Rule 1, C.P.C., does not say that the Court shall not reject the application If the appeal raises a substantial question of law or if the

appellant has ''prima facie'' a good case. The ruling in ''Chennamma, In re: 53 Mad 245 especially as a still later followed, as being in conflict with

the ruling is ''Sabubai v. Ganpat'', 28 Bom 451 ''Rajendra Prasad v. Gopal Prasad'' 4 Pat 67 and ''Maung Tha Din v. Daw Paw'' AIR 1925 Rang

With very-great respect, I prefer to follow the later Bench ruling in ''Narayana Rao v. Veerayya'' 56 Mad 323 in preference to the"" earlier

Bench ruling in ''Chennamma'' In re; 53 Mad 245 especially as a still later Bench of this Court has held in ''Subba Rao v. Tata Reddi'' ILR (1942)

Mad 746 that it is not even necessary for the appellate Court to hear the petitioner in a pauper appeal before rejecting the appeal under Order 44,

Rule 1 , C.P.C., and Wadsworth,. J., has held in ''Kanthimathl Ammal v. Ganesa Aiyar'' 59 Mad 805 that the Court does not act Illegally if it

disposes of an application for leave to appeal ''in forma pauperis'' in a summary manner without hearing the applicant, and even in Chambers, and

without giving him time for payment of the deficient court-fee after rejection of the petition. I am satisfied that the mandatory provisions of the

proviso of Order 44, Rule 1 , C.P.C., will allow only of the interpretation put upon it In the case in ''Narayana Rao v. Veerayya'' 56 Mad 323

''Kanthimathi Ammal v. Ganesa Aiyar'' 59 Mad 805 and ''Subba Rao v. Tata Reddi'', ILR (1942) Mad 746 and that the over-liberal interpretation

put on it In ''Chennamma In re 53 Mad 245 is not to be preferred to the stricter interpretation In these rulings.

Even considering the matter solely and purely In the light of the proviso to Order 44, Rule 1, C.P.C., and without reference to any rulings, I am

satisfied that a Court is bound to reject an application to file an appeal in ''forma pauperis'' if upon a perusal thereof, and of the judgment and

decree appealed from, it sees no reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law or is otherwise

erroneous or unjust. When it hears the counsel for the petitioner and rejects the petition, It must be presumed to have applied its mind to the

arguments of the learned counsel and the facts of the case before rejecting the petition. So any interference in revision u/s 115 of the CPC with

such an order appears to me to be not justified, especially in the light of the Privy Council ruling in ''Venkatagiri v. H. R. E. Board, Madras'' ILR

(1950) Mad 1 laying very strict limits within which alone powers of revision can be exercised, none of which conditions are satisfied here. The

mere fact that the learned District Judge gave no detailed reasons for his rejection is no proof that he did not apply his mind to the facts of the case

or the arguments the learned counsel had urged. The mind of a highly trained Judicial officer, like a District Judge, cannot be taken to be a vacuum

to which arguments are addressed without leaving any effect behind. No ruling has been shown to me by Mr. Vydianatha Alyar which requires the

District Judge to give detailed reasons for rejecting a pauper application under the proviso to Order 44, Rule 1, Q.P.C. indeed, in most cases, it

will be a sheer waste of time, money and energy to write long orders when rejecting such pauper petitions under that proviso. It is enough if the

Judge is proved to have applied his mind to the judgment and decree and the pauper application. Though he was not bound under the rulings cited

above even to hear the counsel for the petitioner before rejecting the application, the learned District Judge did hear the counsel for the petitioners.

Though he was not bound, under the above rulings, to give time for payment of the Court-fee, after rejecting the applications, he gave time for

paying the Court-fee. So the learned District Judge has really granted more Indulgence to the petitioner than he was entitled to, and there is nothing

for the petitioner to complain. Paupers are entitled only to the privileges granted to them. They shall not be allowed more privileges, much less to

take up an undue part of the Court''s time, crowding out the litigants who pay the stipulated Court-fee.

These petitions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed, but, in the peculiar circumstances, with out costs, as these petitions seem to have been

filed relying on the ruling in Chennamma in re: 53 Mad 245. Time granted for payment of Court-fee in both these appeals till 3 p.m., on the 22nd

February, in the District Court, Tiruchirapalli. In no circumstances will this time be extended.