- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. Learned counsel for both the sides are present.
(2.) HEARD. The present revision application is directed against an order of the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, dated 9-1- 1995 in Suit No. 455 of 1994 by which the learned Court below had allowed an application of the plaintiff opposite party to sue as an indigent person. The defendants press this application on the ground that the order was obtained by sup pression of material facts regarding assets of the plaintiff and, as such, the Court had assumed a jurisdiction which could not have been exercised. For entertaining a revision under Section 115 CPC, the High Court is to see whether any jurisdictional errors had been committed as indicated in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 115, but the proviso to this sub-section further directs that the High Court shall not, under Sec tions 115, vary or reverse any order made, except where the order if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or the order if allowed to stand would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. When the plaintiff applied for permission to issue as an indigent person, the defendants raised an objection and the objection was overruled. If the order bad in favour of the defendants, it could have only meant that the plaintiff would not be permitted to sue as an indigent person, but that could not have finally disposed of the suit. Moreover, it was a question of payment of certain Court fee only, which could at the proper time be realised from the plaintiff and it cannot be deemed to occasion a failure of justice or to cause an irreparable injury to the defendants.
(3.) A case-law has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent stat ing that it was a matter between the State and the plaintiff and a private defendant has no authority to challenge the order. Refer ence was made to AIR 1961 SC 1299. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that on the question of Court fee on plaint, the defen dant had no grievance and, accordingly, had no right of revision. Without any reference to the merits of the case, whether the plaintiff should or should not have been granted the right to sue as an indigent person, I hold that the re vision application is incompetent and is ac cordingly dismissed. Application dismissed. .;