AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jenkins, C.J.—This is a Rule calling upon the Opposite Party to show cause why an order of the Court below referred to in the petition should not be set aside as prayed. The order in the petition was one rejecting the Plaintiff''s application for leave to sue as a pauper. The Plaintiff is a shebait. He has brought this suit for recovery of endowed property against one who claims to be the alienee of that property against three of his co-shebaits who purport to have aliened that property and a fifth person and whose capacity in this suit is not very clear. The Plaintiff is neither in his personal capacity nor as shebait possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint. Therefore he is a pauper within the meaning of Or. XXXIII of the C. P. C. Being a pauper he is entitled to sue as such and is not disentitled by the mere fact that the shebaits whom he is compelled to sue may be possessed of sufficient means for payment of the prescribed fee. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law : and the Rule should be made absolute with costs. We assess the hearing-fee at two gold mohurs.
Sharfuddin, J.
I agree.