- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ratnamala Dasi v. Kamakshya Nath Sen Opposite Party.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, wife of the opposite party, initially applied in 1916 for leave to sue in forma pauperis to recover maintenance from her husband for the period from April 1916 to the date of the suit's institution. This application was refused on the ground that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. More than two years later, on 5th August 1918, the petitioner made a second application for leave to sue in forma pauperis to recover maintenance for the same period. The Subordinate Judge dismissed this second application, holding it barred by Order 33, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), relying on the precedent set in Ranchod Morar v. Bezanji Edulji.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an order dismissing an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis on the ground of being barred by Order 33, Rule 15 of the CPC is legally valid.
- Whether a second application for leave to sue in forma pauperis is barred when the first application was refused on the ground that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action.
- Whether the right to sue for maintenance accruing over time constitutes the "same right to sue" under Order 33, Rule 15, thus barring subsequent applications.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ranchod Morar v. Bezanji Edulji | Interpretation of Order 33, Rule 15 CPC barring subsequent applications for leave to sue in forma pauperis. | The Subordinate Judge relied on this precedent to dismiss the second application as barred. However, the Court distinguished the facts and held the precedent did not apply to bar the second application in these circumstances. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed Order 33, Rules 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the CPC to determine the scope of barring subsequent applications for leave to sue in forma pauperis. Rule 5 allows rejection of such applications on specified grounds, including failure to disclose a cause of action. Rule 15 bars subsequent applications "in respect of the same right to sue." The Court noted that the first application was refused because the plaint did not disclose a cause of action, and the petitioner was permitted to apply again with a plaint that showed a cause of action.
The Court reasoned that "cause of action" and "right to sue" are substantially equivalent for the purposes of these rules, and since the first plaint failed to disclose a cause of action, it did not form a basis for barring a subsequent application. Furthermore, the claim for maintenance is a recurring right accruing daily and may change over time. Therefore, the claim for maintenance for the period after the first application constitutes a different right to sue than that which was the subject of the first application.
On these grounds, the Court held that the Subordinate Judge erred in dismissing the second application as barred under Order 33, Rule 15, and that the application should have been considered on its merits.
Holding and Implications
The Court made the Rule absolute, set aside the Subordinate Judge's order, and remitted the case for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
The petitioner was granted costs to be realized from the opposite party. The direct consequence is that the petitioner’s second application for leave to sue in forma pauperis must be heard on its merits rather than dismissed as barred. The Court did not establish any new precedent beyond clarifying the interpretation of Order 33, Rule 15 CPC in the context of recurring rights such as maintenance claims.
1. We are invited in this Rule to consider the legality of an order dismissing an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis on the ground that it is barred by O. 33, R. 15 of the CPC. The petitioner is the wife of the opposite party. In 1916 she applied for leave to sue in forma pauperis to recover maintenance from her husband from April 1916 to the date of the institution of the suit. On that application notice was issued to the opposite party and the application was refused on the ground mentioned in R. 5, Cl. (d), namely, that the allegations in the plaint did not show, a cause of action. More than two years afterwards, she made the present application on 5th August 1918 for leave to sue in forma pauperis to recover maintenance from her husband from April 1916 to the date of the institution of this suit. The Subordinate Judge has held that the application is barred under O. 33, R. 15, and in support of this view, has relied upon the decision in Ranchod Morar v. Bezanji Edulji (1).
2. Order 33, R. 15, is in these terms.
3. An order refusing to allow the applicant to sue as a pauper shall be a bar to any subsequent application of the like nature by him in respect of the same right to sue. This rule must be read along with the provisions of R. 5, 6 and 7. R. 5 authorizes the Court to reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper on one or more of five specified grounds. The fourth of these grounds is that the allegations do not show a cause of action. This rule evidently contemplates a summary rejection by the Court at the earliest stage of the proceedings. R. 6 next provides that where the Court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds stated in R. 5, it shall fix a day, of which at least ten days' clear notice shall be given to the opposite party and the Government Pleader for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce in proof of his pauperism and for having any evidence which may be adduced in disproof thereof. R. 7 lays down that on the day so fixed or as soon thereafter as may be convenient, the Court shall examine the witnesses, if any, produced by either party and may examine the applicant or his agent and shall make a memorandum of the substance of their evidence. The Court shall also hear any argument which the parties may desire to offer on the question, whether on the face of the application and of the evidence, if any, taken by the Court as herein provided, the applicant is or is not subject to any of the prohibitions specified in R. 5. The Court shall then either allow or refuse to allow the applicant to sue as a pauper. It is plain that R. 7 contemplates a refusal of the application on the fourth ground mentioned in R. 5, namely, that the allegations of the petitioner do not show a cause of action. This is what happened here in the first instance. The petitioner thereupon moved this Court. The Court rejected the application and made an observation to the following effect:
The applicant may however apply to sue as a pauper on another plaint which shows a cause of action.”
4. This observation was made ex parte and does not consequently operate as a binding decision between the parties. But we are not prepared to ignore the observation which was made by Woodroffe, J., and Shamsul Hnda, J. We have however independently of this observation, arrived at the conclusion that it was open to the petitioner to make a fresh application for leave to sue in forma pauperis in the circumstances which have happened in this case. The first plaint was rejected on the ground that the allegations did not show a cause of action. Thereupon the petitioner applied to the Court for leave to sue in forma pauperis on the basis of a plaint which she alleged disclosed a cause of action. In our opinion R. 15 does not bar a second application in such circumstances. That rule contemplates the refusal of a second application when it is in respect of the same right to sue, that is, the right to sue which formed the basis of the previous application. Now, admittedly the previous application did not show a cause of action. We are not unmindful that the expression used in R. 5 is “cause of action,” whereas the phrase which appears in R. 15 is “right to sue.” But plainly the two rules are intended to cover the same ground and, for the purposes of this matter there is no substantial distinction between “a right to sue” and “a cause of action,” which refer to the same thing considered from different points of view. There is a further difficulty in the way of the opposite party. The second application is in respect of a suit in which maintenance is claimed for a period of more than two years subsequent to the date when the previous application was filed. Now a right to maintenance is a recurring right, accruing from day to day. It may be extinguished or modified by a, change of circumstances. It cannot by any stretch of language be suggested that the claim to maintenance for the period subsequent to the presentation of the previous application is the same right to sue as furnished or would have furnished a cause of action for the previous application. On both these grounds we hold that the Subordinate Judge should have dealt with the application on the merits and should not have dismissed it as barred under O. 33, R. 15.
5. The result is that this Rule is made absolute, the order of the Subordinate Judge set aside and the case remitted to him in order that he may deal with the case in accordance with law. The petitioner is entitled to her costs of this Rule to be realized from the opposite party. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur.
V.B/R.K
6. Rule made absolute.
Alert