TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (5) TMI 882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... permitted the respondent-plaintiff to sue as an indigent person. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a revision and the same was dismissed by the learned single judge of the High Court and that judgment of the High Court is assailed in this appeal. We heard Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. T. L. Vishwanatha Iyer, learned senior counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that under Order 33, rule 1, an Explanation has been given as to who shall be an "indigent person" and it was pointed out that an "indigent person" is one who is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit ; or where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the subject-matter of the suit. It was further pointed out that prior to the amendment of rule 1 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an "indigent person" was mentioned in the Explanation to rule 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions, any suit may be instituted by an indigent person. Explanation I.-A person is an indigent person : (a)if he is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or (b)where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the subject-matter of the suit. Explanation II.-Any property which is acquired by a person after the presentation of his application for permission to sue as an indigent person and before the decision of the application, shall be taken into account in considering the question whether or not the applicant is an indigent person. Explanation III.-Where the plaintiff sues in a representative capacity, the question whether he is an indigent person shall be determined with reference to the means possessed by him in such capacity." One of the earliest decisions is Perumal Koundan v. Tirumalrayapuram Janankoola Dhanasekhara Sanha Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1918 Mad 362. There, the company regi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey are not natural persons." In Mathew v. Kerala United Corporation Ltd., AIR 1961 Ker 180, it was held that the word "person" mentioned in Order 33, rule 1 should have the extended meaning given to it in law. Under Order 33, rule 1, any suit may be instituted by a pauper. Suits under the Code of Civil Procedure can be instituted not only by natural human beings but also by artificial persons such as a corporation or an idol and also by persons like executors, administrators, trustees and official receivers who represent the estate of another. Prima facie, therefore, having regard to the scheme of the Code, the context and object of the enactment would not exclude juridical persons from the category of persons within the meaning of the said rule. The same view was held in Jogesh Chandra Bera v. Sri Iswar Braja Rai Jew Thakur, AIR 1981 Cal 259, where it was held that a deity as a juristic person can file a suit in forma pauperis under Order 33, rule 1. In Shree Shankarji Maharaj v. Mt. Godavaribai, AIR 1935 Nagpur 209, it was held that an idol represented by a shebait, can file a suit in forma pauperis. It was held that the word "person" in Order 33 has reference to all those wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same view that "person" in Order 33 means only an individual person and does not include a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. Bharat Abhyudoy Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameswar Singh, AIR 1938 Cal 745, also was of the view that in order to decide whether a person includes an artificial person or a corporation or a company, regard must be had to the setting in which the word "person" is placed, to the circumstance in which it is used, and above all to the context in which it stands. In Radha Krishna Devata v. Nathmal Mohta, AIR 1963 Manipur 40, it was held that the word "person" in Order 33 is intended to apply only to a natural person or a human being filing a suit and not to a juridical person like a deity, filing suit through a shebait or trustee. Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an enabling provision which allows the filing of a suit by an indigent person without paying the court fee at the initial stage. If the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in the suit, the court would calculate the amount of court fee which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as an indigent person and that amount would be r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "judgment-debtor" is defined to mean any person against whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made. Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the parties to the suit. Rule 1 of Order 1 says who are all the persons that may be joined as plaintiffs in one suit. Rule 3 states who are all the persons who may be joined as defendants. Any juristic person such as a company or idol can maintain a suit. These persons can be either decree-holders or judgment-debtors and in all these instances, the term "person" is used to describe such company or idol or other juristic person as provided in the General Clauses Act. The definition of the term "person" is given in the General Clauses Act according to which such term shall include any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. The said definition provides that the word "person" would include both natural and artificial persons. Under Order 33, the petitioner who files an application has to present the application in person. Rule 3 states that the person who is presenting the application shall be in a position to answer all material questions relating to the application....