HARA SATNAMI Vs. DHANESWAR PUTEL
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The appellant filed a petition in the court below under O. 33, R. 1, C.P.C. to allow him to prosecute his suit as an indigent person. That petition was dismissed by the impugned order and hence this appeal.
(2.) The court, as I find from the impugned order, has rejected the aforesaid petition of the appellant mostly on the consideration that his natural father, who is representing the minor plaintiff-petitioner in the suit as his next friend, has Ac. 8.29 decimals of land.
(3.) In dealing with a matter of this nature the financial capacity of the plaintiff himself, and not his next friend or near relations, is to be considered. In this connection, the decision reported in AIR 1929 Lah 746 (2) (Shavan Singh v. Mt. Man Kavir); AIR 1946 Lah 81 (Mohammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Bibi); AIR 1970 Delhi 81. (Kewal Krishan v. Khazan Singh) he seen. In the case reported in (1881) ILR 3 Mad 3 (Venkatnarasayya v. Achemma) it has been held that
"There is no rule which Requires that the circumstances of the next friend should be considered. In Golaupmones Dossee v. Prosonomoye Dossee ((1873) 11 Beng LR 373) it was held that an infant may sue in forma pauperis by a next friend who is also a pauper. The Court of the Sard Adalut of this Presidency held that the circumstances that the next friend was possessed of menus did not disentitle a minor to sue in forma pauperis." Their Lordships have held that there is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code which prohibits the minor from suing in forma pauperis when the next Mend has substantial means. In view of the consistent view held in our country on this question as stated above, the head note (b) in the decision reported in AIR 1933 Sind 82 (Chandumal v. Tejulbal) read along with what to stated in column 2 of page 84 of that decision appears to be the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner in that case.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.