(Bibi) Hajra vs Mt. Hameeda and others

Wort, J.—This rule is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Patna, directing the respondents to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. It is contended by Mr. Hasan Jan appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Judge has acted with material irregularity by reason of his taking a date upon which he was to determine whether or no the lady was a pauper and unable to pay the court-fee. There is no doubt from the orders which are before me that the learned Judge disposed of the case as regards the property of the lady on the day on which the application was made, that is to say, on the date on which he decided the question. Now, assuming however that he was wrong in the order that he has made, hut that certainly does not appear on the face of the order, what was his error? It appears that it was either a question of fact or ft raised question of fact and law. That cannot in any way give this Court jurisdiction, as has been pointed out by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in so many cases. But I do not agree that the learned Judge has even committed an error of law. If any error has been committed, it was on a pure question of fact, whether the lady was in possession of funds or could pay the proper court-fee. Mr. Hasan Jan contends that flippant litigation should be discouraged. I therefore discharge this rule with costs. Hearing fee three gold mohurs.