- (1.) THIS is an application for restoration. The petitioner Mansukh Ram filed an appeal from an order of the District & Sessions Judge, dismissing his suit of the value of Rs. 4,50,000/ -. He filed a suit as a pauper and filed an appeal also as a pauper. He failed to take steps for preparation of the paper book and his appeal was, therefore, dismissed by this Court on the 18th of September, 1962, under rule 184 of the High Court Rules. He again made an application for review without success. He has now made this application for restoration of the appeal. He has stated that he does not possess means for getting a paper book prepared in this case, as he is poor and cannot afford to do so. He has prayed that preparation of the paper book in this case may be dispensed with on account of his poverty-stricken condition. Mr. Utsavlal has appeared for the opposite party and he has urged that there is no provision in the rules for dispensing with the preparation of a paper book, and the petitioner's appeal cannot be heard by this Court unless a paper book is prepared first.
(2.) THE fact of the petitioner's poverty is not disputed by the counsel on the other side. We have gone through the rules in Chapter XIII of the High Court Rules. In Single Bench appeals no paper book is prepared. It is only in D. B. cases that a paper book is considered necessary for the convenience of the Court and the members of the Bar. However, there is no rule which goes to the length of saying that no D. B. appeal shall be heard without a paper book. In case the petitioner's case is dismissed for the reason that he cannot afford to pay for the preparation of the paper book, it would mean that justice is to be denied to him for no other reason except petitioner's poverty. Both rich and poor stand at par before this Court and it is very necessary that poor man should not be deprived of justice because of their poverty. Having regard to the condition of poverty of the petitioner, it is clear that he cannot afford to pay expenses for the preparation of) the paper book in this case. If the rules are strictly enforced in this case, the result would be denying justice to the petitioner. THE rules of procedure should not be, so construed as to go to the length of depriving a person of his right to get justice at the hands of this Court. We, therefore, feel that this is a special case in which this Court should interpret the rules liberally. Before the formation of the State of Rajasthan the High Court which functioned at Jodhpur did not require paper books in such cases and the Court studied the case with the help of the original records. THE same procedure may be adhered to in this case. The petition is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number and the office is directed not to insist upon preparation of the paper book as the petitioner is too poor to afford to pay for it. The case shall be listed for hearing without a paper book and Court may follow the procedure of hearing appeals without paper book as was done by the High Court of Jodhpur before the formation of the State of Rajasthan. .;