1. The petitioner's application to sue in forma pauperis was dismissed by the court below, Broadly on two grounds. The first ground was that in showing his assets, He intentionally suppressed some, And the second, That he was possessed of means to pay the requisite court fees.
2. Counsel for the petitioner urged that even if some assets are left out in the petition this will not entail dismissal of the petition as what is fatal is the intentional omission to include such assets. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in air. 1928 pat. 28, Air. 1934 cal. 640. Air. 1941 pat. 638, Air. 1954 mad. 537, And 1961 punj. 131, In support of this proposition. Some of these decisions stress that the utmost good faith is required of the petitioner in the matter of disclosure of assets but all the decisions say that an intentional omission should result in the dismissal of the petition. It was pointed out that the decisions referred to above failed to notice an earlier decision of the madras high court viz., Kuppusamy v. Muthusamy (air. 1915 mad. 652). It was held in air. 1915 mad. 652 that the word 'framed' in 0. 33 r. 5 did not mean that the schedule of assets should be exhaustive and that the omission to include some assets would not be a ground for 'rejecting' the application. It was pointed out that the omission might be due to inadvertence. In nirmal kumar v. Manoranjan (air. 1955 cal. 192) it was held that what sub - rule (a) of 0. 33, R. 5 required was that the frame of the application should be in accordance with r. 2 and not that the particulars given should be correct. The position as i understand it is that if the petition is properly framed it cannot be 'rejected' under r. 5 (a) but should be enquired into, If there is objection about the correctness of the particulars in the schedule. I am inclined to hold that any deliberate omission to include all the assets in the schedule should entail the dismissal of the application under 0. 33, R. 7. I may add that a bench of this court has taken this view in c. M. P. No. 69 of 1962 (supreme court) in a. S. No. 404 of 1959.
3. Coming to the second ground it was held that besides the assets shown in the schedule the applicant had owned decrees for rs. 7000/ - to rs. 8000/ - and that in view of this it could not be said that he had no means to pay court fees on the plaint. His deposition in another case contains an unambiguous statement to this effect. This deposition was given after the presentation of this application so that it is clear that on the date of the application he owned these decrees. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in air. 1942 all. 319, Air. 1944 oudh 218 and air. 1960 andhra pradesh 540 in support of his argument that debts due to an applicant cannot be treated as means within the applicant's actual control. Whatever may be the position about debts, Debts covered by decrees must be viewed differently. The learned judge correctly held that the applicant was possessed of means to pay court fee on the plaint. The civil revision petition must therefore fail. It is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is allowed six weeks to pay the court fees leviable on the plaint, And if it is so paid the court below will register the plaint as a regular suit.
Comments