O.H. Mootham, C.J. - (1.) I have had the advantage of reading the order prepared by Srivastava J. I agree with the conclusion at which he has arrived for the reasons stated by him. R. Dayal, J.
(2.) THIS is an application under Order 44, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing a cross-objection in forma pauperis in First Appeal No. 333 of 1957. The applicant is the Indian Sugar Syndicate Limited (in voluntary liquidation) through its Liquidators four in number. Notice or the application was issued to the appellant, Kundan Sugar Mills, Amroha. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the provisions of Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code do not apply to a limited company. Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with suits by paupers. Its Rules 1 is: "1. Suits may be instituted in forma pauperis subject to the following provisions, any suit may be instituted by a pauper. Explanation:--A person is a 'pauper' when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or, where no such fee is prescribed, when he is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject matter of the suit. Rule 3, as amended by this Court, is: "3. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the application shall be presented to the Court by the applicant in person, unless he is exempted from appearing in Court or detained in prison, in which case the application may be presented by an authorised agent who can answer all material questions relating to the application, and who may be examined in the same manner as the party represented by him might have been examined had such party attended in person." It is contended for the appellant that a limited company cannot possess wearing apparel and cannot present an application in person and that therefore compliance of Rules 1 and 3 is not possible and that consequently it must appear that a limited company is not covered by the expression "person." in the Explanation to Rules 1. I do not agree with this contention.
(3.) THE word "person" is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code, In view of Clause (39) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act the word "person" in the Explanation to Rules 1 of Order 33 of the Code would include a company unless there be anything repugnant in the context of the provisions of Order 33 which deal with suits by paupers. If there be nothing repugnant in those provisions a limited company would be covered by the word "person'' and therefore can sue as a pauper. Rule 1 of Order 33 allows the institution of any suit by a pauper. There is nothing in the Explanation to this rule which would make it impracticable or impossible for a company to institute a suit as a pauper when a fee is prescribed for its plaint. The company can also be covered by the definition of the word "pauper" with respect to a suit for whose plaint no fee is prescribed as in such a case a person is a pauper when he is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject matter of the suit. The mere fact that the wearing apparel is not to be taken into consideration in evaluating property does not mean that it must necessarily be possessed by a person who wants to institute a suit as a pauper and that one who does not possess any wearing apparel cannot be a pauper.;