TMI Blog1951 (6) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited of Calcutta. Apart from the question whether the applicant company has sufficient means to pay the requisite court-fee, the question also arose whether a limited company could be regarded as a "person" within the meaning of Order XXXIII, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code. It does not appear that there has been any decision on this point by the High Court of Lahore or by this Court by which the learned Subordinate Judge could consider himself bound, and there are decisions of other High Courts in support of either side. From the judgment it seems that two decisions in favour of the view that a company is not a "person" within the meaning of Order XXXIII, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, were cited, whereas four decisions were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing provisions, any suit may be instituted by a pauper. Explanation. A person is a 'pauper' when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or, where no such fee is prescribed, when he is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject-matter of the suit." The latter part of the explanation could not be applied to a company by any stretch of imagination and I can hardly believe that any part of the explanation could be intended to be inapplicable to any "person" referred to in the rule. Rule 2 merely prescribes that every application to sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Bakewell and Kumaraswami Sastri, JJ., held that the word "person" in Order XXXIII has the same meaning as in the General Clauses Act, and that the explanation to Rule I simply allows deduction of the value of wearing apparel where the applicant has such apparel and cannot be construed to mean that only persons who, in law, can possess wearing apparel, can sue as paupers. The ruling in Sivagami Ammal v. Gopala Swami Odayar is not so much in point, as the facts were that after a suit had been instituted in forma pauperis the plaintiff who had been allowed to sue as a pauper died, and the question was whether his executor was liable to be dispaupered because personally he was not a pauper, and it was held that he was not liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Otter, J., to the contrary, these learned Judges coming to the conclusion after full discussion of the matter that the word "person" in Order XXXIII means a natural person, that is a human being, and does not include a juridical person such as a receiver under the Insolvency Act. There is also a carefully considered decision of the Calcutta High Court reported as Bharat Abhyuday Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Kameshwar Singh, in which Costello and Biswas, JJ., after considering in separate judgments the provisions of Order XXXIII and previous decisions on the point, held that the word "person" in Order XXXIII, Rule 1, and also in Order XLIV, Rule 1, does not include a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and such a company can ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
