Pauper suit leave must be tested only on prima facie cause of action, not disputed title or defences.

At the stage of leave to sue in forma pauperis, the court must only determine whether the petition prima facie discloses a cause of action and cannot assess disputed title questions, the truth of the allegations, or possible defences; those matters belong to trial, so rejection on that basis was unsustainable. Order I Rule 10 can also be used to transpose a co-defendant as co-applicant in pauper proceedings where legally appropriate, because the application itself is the prescribed mode of instituting the suit without court-fee. The High Court's refusal on the ground that the original application was personal was therefore incorrect.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis could be rejected under Order XXXIII Rule 5(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on an enquiry into the merits of the title dispute and the possible defences to the claim. (ii) Whether Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could be invoked to transpose a co-defendant as co-applicant in proceedings for leave to sue in forma pauperis.

Issue (i): Whether an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis could be rejected under Order XXXIII Rule 5(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on an enquiry into the merits of the title dispute and the possible defences to the claim.

Analysis: Under Order XXXIII, the court at the stage of Rule 5(d) is confined to seeing whether the allegations in the petition, if accepted as true, disclose a cause of action. It is not concerned with the likelihood of success, the truth of the allegations, or the defences that may be raised. Questions involving complicated issues of law or fact, including the effect of the Oudh Estates Act and the rival claims to succession, were matters for trial and not for summary determination at the pauper stage. The petition contained an alternative claim that, even if one basis of title failed, the estate had become non-taluqdari and devolved according to ordinary Hindu law.

Conclusion: The rejection of the pauper application on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could be invoked to transpose a co-defendant as co-applicant in proceedings for leave to sue in forma pauperis.

Analysis: An application for permission to sue in forma pauperis is only the prescribed method for instituting a suit without payment of court-fee. Such proceedings are not personal in the sense assumed by the High Court, and the suit commences when the application is presented. The power under Order I Rule 10 is therefore available where the circumstances justify transposition, subject to the transferee or added party satisfying the requirements applicable to a pauper applicant. The request for transposition could not be refused merely because the original application was said to be personal to the first applicant.

Conclusion: Order I Rule 10 was applicable, and the application for transposition could not be rejected on the ground stated by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the High Court were set aside, and the matters were sent back for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of considering leave to sue as a pauper, the court must only ascertain whether the petition prima facie discloses a cause of action and cannot decide disputed questions of title or the merits of possible defences; procedural powers to add or transpose parties remain available where otherwise legally appropriate.

---