AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyanarayana Raju, J.—Order 33, R. 9 of the CPC provides that
the Court may, on the application of the defendant, or of the Government Pleader, of which seven days'' clear notice in writing has been given to the plaintiff, order the plaintiff to be dispaupered... (b) if it appears that his means are such that he ought not to continue to sue as a pauper.
It is true that the plaintiff stated in his cross-examination that he owns a mill at Gudur which is worth Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 12,000/-and this he was having for the last six years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of O. 33, have been satisfied. Those provisions only empower the Court to dispauper a plaintiff on the application of the defendant or the Government Pleader. It is common ground that there was no such application by the defendant or by the Government Pleader.
Mr. Narayana Rao, appearing for the defendant-respondent, has argued that the Court can dispauper a plaintiff even suo motu without there being an application under O. 33, R. 9. The provision is clear and unambiguous and there is no power vested in Court under O. 38, R. 9 to dispauper a plaintiff suo motu.
This revision petition is therefore allowed but this will not preclude the defendant or the Government Pleader from filing an application under O. 33, R. 9, which if filed, should be considered and disposed of by the lower Court on its merits. There wilt be no order as to costs in this revision petition.