CHINNAMMAL Vs. PAPATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 115 of the C.P.C. to revise an order made by the Subordinate Judge at Ootacamund granting permission to the respondent to sue in forma pauperis.

(2.) The respondent, Papathi Ammal, claimed certain properties with mesne profits on the ground that they belonged to her mother, Maruthayi (who died in 1904) as her stridhanam and that the decree in O.S. No. 91 of 1907, on the file of the Sub- Court at Ootacamund, which the present petitioner obtained against Maruthayi's son in respect of the said properties and the purchase thereunder are not valid and binding on her. With a view to enforce her claim she filed O.P. No. 19 of 1919 on the file of the Sub-Court for permission to sue as a pauper. The present petitioner Chinnammal opposed this application (Exhibit II). On the 30 of March, 1920 when the petition came on for hearing Papathi Ammal, the respondent, was absent and her Counsel stated that he had no instructions. The application was accordingly dismissed on the ground of her absence (Exhibit III). It is not clear from the records before me if Chinnammal or her Counsel was present on the occasion.

(3.) After the lapse of more than three years, from tbe dismissal of the previous application. Papathi Ammal filed O.P. No. 28 of 1923, out of which the present civil revision petition has arisen, for permission to sue as a pauper in respect of the same cause of action. Chinnammal filed an objection statement denying the alleged pauperism and contending that the dismissal of O.P. No. 19 of 1914 precluded her from maintaining this second petition. At the hearing, however, the only ground on which the petition was resisted was that the dismissal of the previous petition operated as a bar to the present petition under Order 33, Rule 15, C.P.C. The Subordinate Judge overruled this contention and granted leave as prayed for.