Liladhar Hansraj vs Shah Vallamji Khetshi of Jamnagar

Raju, J.—This matter has been sent to us by the Supreme Court for a finding whether for purposes of appeal to the Supreme Court the

petitioner is a pauer or not. Rule 2 of Order XIV of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides that when an applicant applies for leave to proceed

as a pauper he must state that he is unable to pay the necessary court-fees and that he is unable to provide security Or sureties for the costs of the

respondent. Order XIII, Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that unless the Court specially directs otherwise any security for costs to be

furnished by the petitioner shall be in the sum of Rs. 2500/- in cash or Government securities. If the appellant is unable to satisfy both the

requirements, viz., the payment of court-fees and also provision for security or sureties for the costs of the respondent, then he will have to be

treated as a pauper. The finding of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Jamnagar, is that the appellant is able to pay court-fees but unable to

provide security Or sureties for the costs of the respondent. On the second point, the appellant''s evidence has not been challenged by counter

evidence of the respondent. We, therefore, see no reason not to accept the finding of the learned Second Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn., Jamnagar, that

the appellant is unable to provide for security or sureties for the costs of the respondent.

In these circumstances, our finding is that the appellant is a pauper for purposes of Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court as ho

is unable to provide security or sureties for the costs of the respondent although he is able to pay the court-fee.

This finding of ours will be transmitted to the Supreme Court for their orders.