Discovery in pauper proceedings is permissible, and revisional interference is limited to jurisdictional error under Section 115 CPC.

In proceedings under Order 33 CPC, discovery of documents is permissible because the inquiry into pauperism is part of the suit and the opposite party has a real interest in testing the applicant's means; the discovery order was therefore valid, and privilege objections arise only after discovery and filing of the affidavit of documents. Revisional interference under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or material irregularity, and does not extend to correcting mere factual or legal error in a discretionary interlocutory order. The High Court exceeded that limit in disturbing the trial court's refusal to grant time and dismissal of the in forma pauperis application.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether discovery of documents is permissible in proceedings under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the discovery order made by the trial court was legally sustainable. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the trial court's refusal to grant time and the consequent dismissal of the application to sue in forma pauperis.

Issue (i): Whether discovery of documents is permissible in proceedings under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the discovery order made by the trial court was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Proceedings on an application to sue in forma pauperis are part of the suit, and the procedural provisions relating to discovery apply unless excluded. Order 33 contemplates participation by the opposite party and the Government in the inquiry into pauperism, and the defendant has a real interest in establishing that the applicant is not a pauper. Discovery may therefore be used to obtain documents relevant to the applicant's means, even though the documents are not themselves required to be admissible in evidence. The stage for claiming privilege arises after discovery is made and the affidavit of documents is filed, not at the stage of the order for discovery. The order directing discovery was also sufficiently specific and was confined to documents relating to bank accounts, immovable properties, and personal accounts for a defined period.

Conclusion: Discovery of documents was permissible in the pauper proceeding, and the trial court's discovery order was valid; the High Court was wrong to set it aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the trial court's refusal to grant time and the consequent dismissal of the application to sue in forma pauperis.

Analysis: Revisional power under Section 115 is confined to jurisdictional errors, illegal exercise of jurisdiction, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. It does not authorise correction of mere errors of fact or law unconnected with jurisdiction. The trial court had jurisdiction to decide the application, and the refusal to adjourn or grant time did not amount to a jurisdictional defect, breach of natural justice, or material irregularity of the kind that would justify interference in revision. The High Court therefore exceeded the proper limits of its revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering under Section 115 with the trial court's order refusing time and dismissing the application to sue in forma pauperis.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed, restoring the trial court's orders.

Ratio Decidendi: In a pauper proceeding, discovery of documents under the civil procedure rules is permissible where the documents are relevant to the question of pauperism, and revisional interference under Section 115 is confined to jurisdictional defects or material irregularity, not mere errors in interlocutory or discretionary orders.

---