MEEK SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Bilaspur dismissing under Order 33, Rule 7(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure an application by the Petitioner for leave to sue in forma pauperis.

(2.) THE Petitioner filed an application under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to institute a suit in forma pauperis. Notice was issued to the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Collector. The Petitioner was examined as a witness. He stated that he was in receipt of about Rs. 236/ - as salary and that he had no other property or income and therefore was unable to pay the Court fee amounting to Rs. 3,076/ -. In cross -examination, however, he admitted that he had about Rs. 1,200/ - in his provident Fund Account, and that he had landed property at Nahan. He admitted that he had not shown the property in the Schedule appended to the application under Order 33, Rule 1. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge has dismissed the application on the view that the Petitioner had not come to Court with clean hands and had suppressed details of the property owned by him.

(3.) THE present case falls within the rule laid down by the Madras High Court in Al. Ar. Alagappa Chettiar v. Pl. Ct. Palaniappa Chettiar, : AIR 1970 Mad 269. Where a Plaintiff wilfully attempts to suppress information regarding the extent of property owned by him, his application under Order 33, Rule 1 should be dismissed. There must be at most good faith in the disclosure of assets and any intentional departure from it must attract dismissal. In the present case, the Nahan property was not included in the Schedule to the application. In his examination -in -chief the Petitioner attempted to suppress the fact that he owned such property, he stated that he had no other property or income besides the salary of Rs. 236/ - per month. It was only in cross -examination that he was compelled, to disclose the fact of his owing the Nahan property. In the circumstances the learned Senior Subordinate Judge was justified in dismissing his application for leave to sue in forma pauperis.