(1.) Heard Mr. S. Deb (Jr.), the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and also Mr. Pradip Deb Ray, learned counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) A Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 5 of 2001 has been sought to be filed by the applicant/petitioner as appellant against the judgment and decree dated 15-5-2001 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in F.A. No. 27 of 1994 (Re-RFA No. 3 of 2000) and by filing a separate application which has been registered as C.M. Application No. 180 of 2001 the appellant-applicant has sought for permission to file the appeal as an indigent person. Notices were issued to the respondents and respondents have appeared before the Court and they have filed objection and by an order of this Court passed on 24-4-2002, the District Collector, West Tripura, Agartala was asked to submit a report regarding the properties of the present appellant-applicant. Pursuant to the requisition, the District Collector has submitted his report dated 16-5-2002. In the report the District Collector has mentioned that the petitioner is possessed of and owns movable property worth Rs. 15,500/. The District Collector has also shown some other properties which belong to the father and mother of the applicant. The properties which belong to the parents may not be relevant in the present case.
(3.) Order XXXIII of CPC prescribes provisions for institution of a suit by an indigent person. Again, Order XLIV of CPC prescribes that provisions relating to suit by indigent person will be applicable in respect of appeals filed by an indigent person. The present appeal is under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and our considered opinion is that the provision as contained in Order XXXIII of CPC read with Order XLIV of CPC will also be applicable in an appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Accordingly, in the present case, we are to determine as to whether the provisions of Order XXXIII of CPC have been complied with. Rule 2 of Order XXXIII of CPC reads as follows :-