Madhavan Nair, J - (1.)The petitioner asked for permission to institute the suit as a pauper in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ramnad and that petition was allowed and the petitioner was treated as a pauper. Later on it was found that the valuation of the suit made it triable by the District Munsif of Ramnad. A memorandum was submitted by both the parties and it was agreed that the said suit should be tried by the District Munsif's Court, Ramnad. The plaint was accordingly returned for presentation to the proper Court under Order 7, Rule 10 Civil P.C. The petitioner then presented the plaint to the District Munsif's Court of Ramnad and filed an application under Order 33, Rules 1, 2 and 3 and under Section 151, Civil P.C., to declare the petitioner as pauper and to allow the petitioner to continue the suit O.S. 437 of 1927 on the file of that Court in forma pauperis.
(2.)Objection was taken by the respondents that the petition would not lie and that no such permission should be given. It is pointed out that the plaint was presented by a pleader and not by the party in person and that the requirements of Order 33 have not been complied with. These objections were uphold by the lower Court and the petition was dismissed.
(3.)I think the lower Court's decision is wrong. The plaint that was returned was validly returned by the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad and it had to be presented to the District Munsif in pursuance of the order passed by the Subordinate Judge. No objection can be taken to the presentation of the plaint in these circumstances. Further it was also agreed by the parties that the suit may be tried by the District Munsif, Ramnad. In a case of this description when the plaint validly returned by one Court is presented to another Court in pursuance of the order passed by the first Court, I do not think that the objection that it should have been filed by the party in person in order to entitle the petitioner to ask for liberty to continue the suit in forma pauperis can be upheld. The principle of the decision in Subbarao v. Venkataratnam A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 823 may be applied to this case. There it was pointed out that if a plaint has been validly presented in a Court and then the petitioner seeks to continue the suit in forma pauperis his petition is not to be dismissed on the ground that it was not in the form prescribed by Rule 2, Order 33, and presented in person as required by Rule 3, and that the proper procedure was to see if the plaint discloses a cause of action and issue notice to the Government to see if the plaintiff was really a pauper unable to pay the additional stamp duty, and, if the same was found, to allow the plaintiff to continue the suit in forma pauperis. Of course it is not disputed by the petitioner that her pauparim may be enquired into de novo in the District Munsif's Court of Ramnad. I think, on the principle enunciated in the above Madras decision and also having regard to the joint memo filed by both the partis in the present case, the application of the petitioner should have been allowed by the learned District Munsif. I set aside the lower Court's order. The petition will be taken up and disposed of on the merits. The petition is allowed with costs.