2001 (5) TMI 882 - SC - Companies Law

Public limited companies can sue as indigent persons under Order 33, Rule 1

The Supreme Court held that a public limited company can sue as an indigent person under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The term ... Whether the first respondent, a limited company is entitled to sue as an indigent person under Order 33, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The word 'person' has to be given its meaning in the context in which it is used. It refers to a person who is capable of filing a suit and this being a benevolent provision, it is to be given an extended meaning. Therefore, we are of the view that a public limited company, which is otherwise entitled to maintain a suit as a legal person, can very well maintain an application under Order 33, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We hold that the word 'person' mentioned in Order 33 includes not only a natural person but other juridical persons also. Issues Involved:1. Whether a limited company is entitled to sue as an indigent person under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Detailed Analysis:Entitlement to Sue as an Indigent Person:The primary issue in this appeal is whether the respondent, a limited company, can sue as an indigent person under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The appellant contended that the term 'person' in Order 33, Rule 1 refers only to natural persons and not to juristic persons like companies. This argument was based on the interpretation of various provisions within Order 33, including the requirement for the applicant to present the application in person and answer material questions, which the appellant argued could only be done by a natural person.Appellant's Arguments:The appellant's counsel argued that the term 'indigent person' as defined in Order 33, Rule 1, should be interpreted narrowly to include only natural persons. They pointed out that the original explanation to Rule 1 included the phrase 'other than his necessary wearing apparel,' which would logically apply only to natural persons. They also emphasized that Rule 3 requires the applicant to present the application in person, which a juristic person like a company cannot do.Respondent's Arguments:The respondent's counsel argued for a broader interpretation of the term 'person,' including juristic persons like companies. They contended that Order 33 is a benevolent provision intended to help all litigants who cannot afford court fees, and thus should be construed liberally. They cited the General Clauses Act, which defines 'person' to include companies and other juristic entities, supporting their argument that a company should be allowed to sue as an indigent person.Judicial Precedents:Several judicial precedents were examined to determine the interpretation of the term 'person' in Order 33. A majority of these precedents, including decisions from the Madras, Bombay, Hyderabad, Kerala, Calcutta, Nagpur, Allahabad, Gujarat, and Patna High Courts, supported the view that the term 'person' includes juristic persons. These decisions emphasized that the benevolent intent of Order 33 should extend to all entities capable of suing, including companies and other juristic persons.Contrasting Views:Some High Courts, including Rangoon, Punjab, Calcutta, and Manipur, held a contrary view, interpreting 'person' to mean only natural persons. They argued that the procedural requirements of Order 33, such as presenting the application in person and answering questions, implied that only natural persons could be indigent persons under the CPC.Supreme Court's Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the term 'person' in Order 33 should be interpreted to include both natural and juristic persons. The Court noted that the deletion of the phrase 'other than his necessary wearing apparel' from the explanation to Rule 1 by the CPC Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976 removed a significant basis for limiting the term to natural persons. The Court also emphasized that a company, being a juristic person, can be represented by a competent individual for the purposes of presenting an application under Rule 3. The Court held that the benevolent intent of Order 33 should extend to all entities capable of suing, including companies.Final Judgment:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a public limited company can sue as an indigent person under Order 33, Rule 1 of the CPC. The term 'person' in this context includes both natural and juristic persons, and the procedural requirements of Order 33 do not preclude a company from presenting an application through a competent representative. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.