- (1.) On 27th of January 1956, an application was made by Mahant Sardar Singh for self and on behalf of Gurdwara Sahib Kothi Begowal as Mahant and Mohtmin of this Gurdwara, for permission to file a suit for possession of 18 standard acres of land described in the plaint. As a result of the enquiry made by the learned trial Court, it came to the conclusion that Sardar Singh was a pauper and that Gurdwara Sahib Kothi Begowal, also was possessed of no property. The Court, however, came to the conclusion that in view of the decision of this Court reported as Associated Pictures Ltd. v. National Studios Ltd., AIR 1951 Punj 447, no juristic person could take advantage of Order 33, rule 1, and that Gurdwara Sahib Kothi Begowal could not be declared a pauper. Sardar Singh was therefore directed to score out the name of Gurdwara Sahib Kothi Begowal if he wanted to proceed with the suit in forma pauperis. Against this order the present revision was filed on behalf of Gurdwara Sahib Kothi Begowal.
(2.) The matter came up before Gurnam Singh J. on 22nd of April, 1958, who, in view of the conflict of authorities, referred the same to a Division Bench.
(3.) The relevant provisions of Order 33 requiring consideration are as follows:- "Rule 1. 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 is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his necessary wearing-apparel and the subject-matter of the suit. Rule 2. x x x (This relates to the contents of the application). Rule 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, in which case the application may be presented by an authorized 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. Rule 4(1) Where the organisation is in proper form and duly presented, the Court may, if it thinks fit, examine the applicant, or his agent when the applicant is allowed to appear by agent, regarding the merits of the claim and the property of the applicant. (2) * * * * * * *." The question for consideration is whether the word 'person' as used in rules 1, 3 and 4 of Order 33 means only a natural person or does it also include a juristic person. Clause(39) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act of 1897 provides that the word 'person' shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The view, however, taken by the learned Judges in S. M. Mitra v. Corporation of Royal Exchange Assurance, AIR 1930 Rang. 259 and Bharat Abhyudoy Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1938 Cal 745, which was followed by Falshaw J. in AIR 1951 Punj 447, was that the word 'person' as used in Order 33 refers only to natural persons who are capable of (a) possessing wearing-apparel as mentioned in the Explanation to rule 1, (b) presenting the Court as provided under rules 3 and, respectively. As observed by Falshaw J., though clause(39) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act gives a wider meaning to the word 'person', yet this definition is not intended to be of universal application since the opening words of section 3 read- "In this Act, and in all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context * * * * * *." It was held that inasmuch as a juristic person is not capable of having wearing- apparel or personally presenting the application or being personally examined as provided under rules 1,3 and 4 the wider meaning given to the word 'person' in clause(39) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act s inapplicable to the provisions of Order 33.;