- (1.) In order to resolve the controversy raised in this letters patent appeal, the following facts deserve to be taken notice of.
(2.) The appellant raised a loan from the State Bank of Patiala, respondent No. 1, after hypothecating and mortgaging movable and immovable properties belonging to him and respondents Nos. 2 and 3, his mother and father, respectively. It is common case of the parties that the house mortgaged with the respondent-bank belonged to respondent No. 2, the mother of the appellant. Besides this house, the goods stored in the godown of the appellant including the 'stock in trade' were also hypothecated for the payment of the loan.
(3.) The respondent bank brought a suit for the recovery of the loan amount by way of selling the mortgaged and hypothecated properties. A decree for Rs. 36,569.40 was passed in favour of the bank against the defendants including the present appellants. Out of the judgment-debtors only the appellant had chosen to file RFA No. 5 of 1977 in forma pauperis. He pleaded that as all the properties, movable and immovable, including the 'stock in trade' constituted the subject-matter of the suit and he had no other means to pay the requisite Court fee, he be declared to be an indigent person and allowed to continue the appeal without payment of Court fees. This prayer of his was declined by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated December 22, 1977, now under appeal.;