HARISADHAN GHOSE Vs. DE PENNING
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The Petitioner before us applied before the court below for permission to sue as a pauper. The opposite parties were the Defendants in the intended pauper suit, which appears to have been directed against the Petitioner's alleged wrongful discharge or dismissal from service under the said Defendants opposite parties or more accurately, under the firm Defendant opposite party No. 1, of which Defendants opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 are partners or proprietors.
(2.) The Petitioner's application was opposed, by the opposite parties, on whom notices were served under Rule 6 of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) The learned trial Judge found that the Petitioner was a pauper but lie rejected his aforesaid application upon the other finding that, in view of an alleged award under the Industrial Disputes Act, purporting to hold, inter alia, that the Petitioner's above dismissal was justified, the Petitioner, in his present application, could not be said to have had any cause of action for his aforesaid intended suit. The application appears to have been rejected under Order XXXIII, Rule 7(2) of the Code, read with Rule 5(d) of the said Order. Against this order of rejection the present rule was obtained by the Petitioner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.