Gangurla Veeranamma vs L. Srinivas Rao

Bilgrami, J.—This petition in revision is directed against an order of the Third Judge of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 7-8-1952, accepting the requisite court fee for payment of which time was given, and registering the Respondent''s suit.

The petition of the Respondent for leave to sue in forma pauperis was rejected oil 25-3-1952, and it was ordered that he should pay the court fee by the next hearing fixed on 15-4-1952. The Respondent neither paid the court-fee, nor appeared on that date, and the application was dismissed for want of prosecution. It was then restored on 16-6-1952 and the court-fee being paid within the further time granted, the order under revision was passed.

The point that arises for decision is whether after the order of dismissal passed on 15-4-1952, the court was competent to restore the application and grant time. I think that after a pauper petition is dismissed the court loses seisin of the case and no order u/s 149, Code of Civil Procedure. can be passed as there remains no proceeding pending before it. Out of the numerous decisions in support of this view, I shall content myself with citing a few. The question couched in the following terms was referred to a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in - Chunna Mal Vs. Bhagwant Kishore, .

whether after rejecting an application for permission to sue as a pauper, can the Court by a separate and subsequent order allow the applicant to pay the requisite court-fee u/s 149, CPC and treat the application as a plaint.''

This question was answered in the negative on the ground that alter dismissal there remains no document before the court to which Section 149 can apply. In this case after the pauper petition was rejected a review application was filed and while rejecting it time was granted. It was held this could not be done. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in - Mathura Singh v. Sm. Sudama Devi AIR 1954 Pat 170(B), held that the court having once dismissed the pauper application without giving the applicant time to file the requisite court-fee, could not grant it by a subsequent order.

In a more recent case - Kalap Nath Singh and Another Vs. Shyama Nand and Others, , a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has again affirmed the view taken of the matter in the earlier decision cited above. See also in this regard - Ram Het Gir v. Banwari Lal AIR 1938 Lah 41 (D) and - Chudamull Sham Rao v. Babji Dadu Appa''. It is argued on behalf of the Respondent that the application was dismissed for want of prosecution and the court by the inherent powers u/s 151, CPC could restore it, and it cannot be said that no proceeding was pending when time was granted.

This reasoning may be ingenious, but in my view is not correct. Whatever words the court may use while dismissing the application, the fact remains that in accordance with the Court''s order the date of dismissal was the last day on which the court-fee had to be paid, that it was not paid; and no order was made granting further time.

Without grant of further time, the proceeding cannot be deemed as pending; and in my judgment, no valid distinction can be drawn for the purpose of applying what has been laid down in the above rulings, between an order of dismissal of the petition in the first instance, and later on under the circumstances in which it was dismissed, after granting time, in the present case. I hold therefore that the court below was not competent to pass the order under revision.

In the result, this revision petition is allowed, the order under revision is set aside. Considering the circumstances of the case, no order is made n to costs. This order will govern the connected Revision Petition No. 254/4 of 1952.