Mohinder Kaur and others vs Sadhu Singh and others Miss Jayshree Thakur Vs Sadhu Singh and others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—Challenged in appeal here is the wholly unwarranted order of the trial court declining permission to the Appellants to sue in forma pauperis on the ground that their application was barred by time.

The Appellants here are the widow and children of Karnail Singh deceased, who was murdered by the Respondents in village Sunner Khurd in Tehsil Phillaur Distt. Jalandhar. This happened on August 15, 1970. The repondents were tried and convicted for this murder by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.

The Appellants thereafter on August 4, 1972 filed an application under Order 33 of the CPC for permission to sue in forma pauperis to claim Rs. 50,000/- as damages from the Respondents for the murder of Karnail Singh. This application was filed in the Court at Jalandhar. An objection was taken on behalf of the Respondents that the Court at Jalandhar lacked territorial jurisdiction. This objection was eventually up-held by the trial court at Jalandhar by its order of August 5, 1975. The application and plaint were accordingly ordered to be returned to the Appellants. This was actually done on August 7, 1975 and on the same day the application along with the plaint was presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Phillaur along with an application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the dalay.

The trial Court returned the clear finding that the Appellants did not own any property and were unable to pay court-fee, but dismissed the application to sue in forma pauperis holding it to be barred-by time. In this behalf, it was observed that the Appellants had not acted bona fide as they had presented the application in the court at Jalandhar knowing that it had no territorial jurisdiction.

To impute lack of bona fide to the Appellants in the context of the circumstances of this case was clearly wholly uncalled for. It deserves mention that the Appellants had asserted jurisdiction in the-court at Jallandhar on the ground that the Respondents had been tried and convicted for the murder of Karnail Singh at Jalandhar and what is more, they were detained in the Jail at Jalandhar at that time. This, was clearly a mistaken view of the law, but it is apparent that the Appellants persisted in asserting jurisdiction in the court at Jalandhar obviously on the advice of their counsel. This can by no means justify lack of bona fides being fastened upon them so as to deny them the benefit of the provisions of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act.

The Appellants acted with utmost promptitude in this matter, in that, they filed the application at Phillaur on the very day on which the application was returned to them by the court at Jalandhar There is thus ample justification for extending to them the benefits of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act and holding that there was indeed sufficient cause for the condonation of delay on their part in filing the application in the correct court.

The impugned order of the trial court cannot therefore, be sustained. The application of the Appellants for permission to sue in forma pauperis is accordingly hereby allowed.

This appeal is thus accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.

The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on August 20, 1986 for further proceedings in the matter according to law. A direction is also issued to the trial court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.