9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Balakrishnan, J. The point for decision in this appeal is whether the first respondent, a limited company ("the respondent" for short), is entitled to sue as an indigent person under Order 33, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts of the case, in brief, are thus. The respondent filed a suit before the Sub-Court, Kochi, and sought permission to sue as an indigent person. The appellant herein raised objections and contended that the plaintiff being a public limited company was not a "person" coming within the purview of Order 33, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the word "person" referred to therein applies only to a natural person and not to other juristic persons. The Subordinate Judge 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 Expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as an indigent per-, son. Counsel argued that the definition of the word "person" contained in the General Clauses Act will apply and that extended meaning is to be attributed to the word "person" referred to in Order 33. Reference was made to a series of decisions on the subject. A survey of the various decisions would show that the preponderance of the view is that the word "person" referred to in Order 33 includes a juristic person also. The context in which the word "person" is used in Order 33 would also indicate that a company also can sue as an indigent person. The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are as follows : "1. Suits may be instituted in forma pauperis. Subject to the following provisions, 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 ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule 1 to corporations. In Syed Ali v. Deccan Commercial Bank Ltd., AIR 1951 Hyderabad 124, it was held as under : "The Legislature while passing the Civil Procedure Code had before it the definition of person - in the General Clauses Act. Now, is there anything repugnant in the Code which makes the definition of person inapplicable to person in Order 33 or is the Explanation of person in the Code merely illustrative without being exhaustive ? No doubt, the expressions apparel and examination of pauper in court lend colour to the view that the person contemplated is a natural person but there is nothing to suggest that these words are meant to be exhaustive or to exclude categories of juristic persons who are entitled to sue though they 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 id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Justice Heald (page 263) : "It seems to me that the provisions of rule 3, Order 33 prescribing that an application for leave to sue as a pauper must be presented by the applicant in person is repugnant to the view that person in that rule was intended to mean anything but a natural person or was intended to include a juridical or artificial person, and that the provisions of rules 4 and 7 regarding the examination of the applicant and the reference to wearing apparel in the Explanation to rule 1 tend in the same direction. I would accordingly hold that person in Order 33 means a natural person, that is a human being, and does not include a juridical person such as a receiver ." Associated Pictures Ltd. v. National Studios Ltd. [1951] 21 Comp Cas 379 ; AIR 1951 Punjab 447, also held 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suit. The expression "other than his necessary wearing apparel" was deleted by the CPC Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976. These words had assumed some importance in attributing the meaning of natural person to the word "person" mentioned in Order 33. A company, idol or other juristic person cannot have wearing apparel. However, as these words are now deleted by the Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976, the present Explanation I need alone be taken to construe the meaning of the term "person" in Order 33. In the Code of Civil Procedure, though the term "person" occurs in several other parts, it is not defined in the Code. The term "decree holder" defined in section 2(3) is as follows : "Decree-holder means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made." Under section 2(10), "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 def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
