Suits by

33—Plaintiff petitioner’s solvency is the sole question to determine whether
the plaintiff would be allowed to sue asforma pauperis—The fact that plaintiffs
father is a solvent man is not a matter which a court can take into
consideration while determining an application under Order 33—When an error has
been discovered by the High Court, the latter suo motu will pass necessary
order to prevent gross injustice.

Abdul Hannan
Vs. Saima Khanam (1974) 26 DLR 337.

—The learned
Munsif did not consider the report which he called froip the learned Deputy
Commissioner, who opined that the plaintiff was a pauper. In an enquiry as to
whether a person is a pauper or not the main element is to be considered if the
said person is of sufficient means which may enable him to pay the prescribed

Abdul Hannan
Vs. Saima Khanam (1974) 26 DLR 337.


Or. 33, r. 1— Suit in
forma pauperis—In considering whether a Hindu married woman whose husband’ is
alive, has the means to pay the court- fee—Ornaments which arc ordinarily worn
by her and which are considered as part of her wearing apparel should be
exempted from such consideration:

Sm. Renu Prova Dey Vs. Sree Anil Kumar Dey,
(1970) 22 DLR 230.


Or.33, rr.
2, 5(a)—

Persons applying to sue as a pauper must make full disclosure of all his
assets—Failure will lead to dismissal of the application.

Mahamaya Dutta
Vs. Radha Ballay Sarkar (1983) 35 DLR 276.


Or. 33,
Application for leave to sue as a pauper : Rule 5(a) provided that an
application for permission to sue as a pauper will be rejected unless it
conforms to the requirements of rules 2 and 3.

application for leave to sue as a pauper must disclose all assets; want of
bonafides will entail rejection.

Sailkupa Co.
Op. Society Vs. Jahangir (1957) 9 DLR 412.


Or. 33—Pauper
suits and pauper appeals— distinction between.

examination of the two Orders, namely Orders 33 and 44 of the C.P.Code
respectively reveals some points of distinction between pauper suits and pauper
appeals. A pauper suit which is initiated by an application under rule 2 of
Order 33 C.P. Code, has to contain particulars like a plaint in a suit. It is
thus a composite document consisting of the application to sue as a pauper and
the plaint for the suit. If the application is granted, it is automatically
deemed as a plaint to be numbered and registered as

such under
rule 7 thereof. If it is rejected, one of the reasons for which may be, as
stated in rule 5 of Order 33 CPC, that the allegations do not show a cause of
action, the plaint goes with it, and nothing survives thereafter for the
determination of the Court. The rejection of the application bars a subsequent
application of like nature in respect of the same right to sue, but a suit can
be instituted in the ordinary manner in respect of such right, subject to the
law  limitation and subject to costs (if
any) in cuffed by the Provincial Government and the opposite party in opposing
the application for leave to sue as a pauper.

Mst. Aisha
Bibi Vs. Akbar Ali (1968) 20 DLR (SC) 284.



Or. 33, rr.
1-16. Suits by paupers.


A pauper
application is a composite document containing an application for leave and a
plaint, 1949 (Mad) 162.

An application for probate or for letters of administration can be
filed informa pauperis. 1938 (Mad) 486.

A respondent
cannot file a review application in forma pauperis. 1933 Mad. 177.

Under r.2
the application should contain all particulars required in a plaint. 1935
Pat. 193.

application must contain a schedule of the moveable as well as immovable properties.
9 CLJ 610: 74 IC 344.