9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "person" in Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for allowing a company to sue in forma pauperis. Analysis: The judgment involved a petition by a company in voluntary liquidation seeking permission to bring a suit in forma pauperis against another company for the recovery of a sum of money. The primary issue revolved around whether a limited company could be considered a "person" within the meaning of Order XXXIII, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code. The court noted conflicting decisions from various High Courts on this matter, with some supporting the view that a company is not a "person" under the rule, while others holding the opposite stance. The court delved into the interpretation of the term "person" within the context of the Civil Procedure Code. While the General Clauses Act of 1897 defines "person" to include companies, the court emphasized that this definition is not universally applicable. The court highlighted that the word "person" must be construed in the context of the statute and the subject matter being dealt with. Analyzing the relevant provisions of Order XXXIII, the court concluded that the term "person" in this rule refers to an individual person, as evident from the language and requirements outlined in the Order. Furthermore, the court discussed previous judgments from different High Courts, including cases where it was held that a limited company qualifies as a "person" for the purpose of Order XXXIII. However, the court disagreed with these interpretations and aligned with decisions that emphasized the distinction between natural persons and juridical persons. The court cited specific cases where it was ruled that a limited company does not fall within the scope of the term "person" in Order XXXIII. Ultimately, the court accepted the revision petition filed by the defendant company, setting aside the lower court's order permitting the respondent company to sue in forma pauperis. The court emphasized that the provisions of Order XXXIII unambiguously indicate that the term "person" in this context pertains only to an individual person, thereby rejecting the notion that a company, such as the respondent in this case, could avail the benefits of suing as a pauper. The parties were directed to appear in the lower court, and costs were assessed against the respondent company.
|
