D.V. Seligal, J. - (1.) This Civil Revision is directed against an Order dated 24th Jan., 1986 of the learned District Judge, Patiala allowing the respondent to file an appeal before him as an indigent person from a judgment and decree dated 25th July, 1985 of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Amloh, whereby the suit of the petitioner, for recovery of Rs. 1,59,000.00 along with interest was decreed against tin respondent.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are manifold. It has been con tended that in view of the provisions of Order 44 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any person entitled to prefer an appeal, who is unable to pay the court fee required for the memorandum of appeal, is to present an application accompanied by a memorandum of appeal, and may be allowed to appeal as an indigent person subject, in all matters, including presentation of such application, to the provisions relating to suit by indigent persons in so far as those provisions are applicable. The provisions relating to suits by indigent persons are embodied in Order 33 of the Code rule 2 whereof lays down that every application for permission to sue as an indigent person shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits a schedule of any moveable or immovable property belonging to the applicant, with estimated value thereof shall be annexed thereto and it shall be signed and verified in It manner prescribed for the signing and verification of the pleadings, is contended that no application as contemplated by the aforesaid pro visions was filed by the respondent and in fact a prayer that she ma be allowed to file the appeal as an indigent person was made only in the memorandum of appeal. The averment so made, was not sign and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification pleadings. It is, thus, contended that it was incumbent on the learn District Judge to have rejected the prayer for filing the appeal as an indigent person in view of the provisions of rule 5(a) of Order 33 of Code. The order under revision is further assailed on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly denied the opportunity to contest the prayer of the respondent for filing the appeal as an indigent person. In view of the provisions of rule 6 of Order 33 of the Code, learned District Judge should have provided the opportunity to the petitioner to oppose the prayer.
(3.) It is not necessary to enter into the merits of the above contentions in view of the concession made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity to oppose the prayer of the respondent to file the appeal as an indigent person.;