- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri A. N. Bhargava, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-applicant.
(2.) THIS civil revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called the Code), is directed against the order and judgment dated 26th August, 1989 passed by the Civil Judge, Jhansi rejecting the application of the applicant praying for withdrawal of the permission granted to the plaintiff-opposite parties No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to sue as indigent persons under Order XXXIII of the Code vide order dated 14th February, 1986. Before the court below it was contended on behalf of the applicant that he could not oppose the grant of permission to the plaintiff-opposite parties to sue as indigent persons on account of his minority. The court below has pointed out that the applicant was represented through his father, the natural guardian; that the natural guardian of the applicant had appointed a counsel to look-after his interest and defend him; and that the counsel did appear to participate in the proceedings on behalf of the applicant. Further, the court below has taken note of the fact that the controversy with regard to the grant of permission to the plaintiff-opposite parties to sue as indigent persons was sought to be revived after an intermin able delay of more than three years.
(3.) THE applicant, having participated in the proceedings through his counsel appointed by his father and natural guardian, is estopped from challenging the permission granted to the plaintiff-opposite parties to sue as indigent persons on wholly untenable ground trial he could not oppose the prayer of the plaintiff-opposite parties for grant of leave to institute the suit as indigent persons because of his minority. Participation of the counsel appointed on his behalf by his father and natural guardian will be deemed to be participation of the applicant. In fact, the applicant is bound by the acts of his counsel and, in the absence of any fraud, misrepresentation or any like circumstance he cannot be permitted to repudiate the same. Moreover the question whether a person should be allowed to institute a suit as an indigent person is, basically, related to the payment of court fees with which the State Government alone is concerned. In the instant case, the order dated 14th February, 1986 granting permission to the plaintiff-opposite parties to sue as indigent persons does not appear to have been challenged by any party includ ing the State Government. Circumstances which may justify withdrawal of the permission to sue as an indigent person are enumerated in Rule 9 of Order XXXIII of the Code which provides that the court may, on the application of the defendant, or of the Government pleader, of which seven days clear notice in writing has been given to the plaintiff, order that the permission granted to the plaintiff to sue as an idigant person be withdrawn, it he is guilty of a vaxatious or improper conduct in the course of the suit; if it appears that his means are such that he ought not to continue to sue as an indigent person; or if he has entered into any agreement with reference to subject matter of the suit under which any other person has obtained an interest to the subject matter. The ground taken by the applicant praying for withdrawal of the permission granted to the plaintiff-opposite parties as indigent persons is not covered by any of the circumstances mentioned in Rule 9 of Order XXXIII of the Code.;