AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Daya Krishan Mahajan, J.—This is a petition for revision by the Defendants challenging the order of the Court below allowing the Plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis. The sole contention of the Petitioner is that he made the court-fee amount available to the Plaintiff before the order granting permission to sue in forma pauperis was passed. In my view the volition of the Defendant in making the funds available would have no meaning in determining the question whether the Plaintiff is or is not a pauper. It is not a case where the Plaintiff has come into possession of funds not at the mercy of the Defendant but in his own right. In this case certainly the Court will not grant permission to the Plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis but this is not that type of a case. Moreover, as observed by Dalip Singh, J., in Maratab Ali Shah v. Madan Lal AIR 1934 Lah. 295, a Petitioner can have no possible grievance, assuming the order to be wrong, the only person really affected is the Crown and the High Court can interfere in a proper case, but it would be slow to move at the instance of the opposite party, i.e., the Defendant." I am in respectful agreement with these observations and following the decision in Maratab Ali Shah''s case, I dismiss this petition. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Mr. Chetan Dass, who appears for the Plaintiff-Respondent, undertakes not to withdraw the amount deposited by the Defendant in the trial Court.