Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (8) TMI 412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... him on 16-6-1977. By that Will the building and the land on which it stands was bequeathed to the appellant. The Will was subsequently revoked. It was then that the application for permission to sue as an indigent person for the value of ornaments was filed on 19-1-1978. That was dismissed on 19-1-1979. C.M. Appeal 299 of 1979 filed against that decision was dismissed on 19-11-1981 granting two months' time to pay Court-fee on the ground that she suppressed her assets and means. Instead of paying Court-fee and converting the suit filed along with the application into a regular suit, she filed the present suit as a fresh suit on 27-11-1981 on payment of Court-fee. That is how the plea of limitation happened to be raised. 3. 23-1-1975 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the suit would have been in time if it was filed within three years of Ext. A-l. The trial Court went wrong in considering an acknowledgement not pleaded. 5. On the merits also Ext: A-1 do not contain any such acknowledgement. There is only a statement in Ext. A-l that the building was repaired with funds obtained by selling approximately 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the appellant. He did not say that on account of this he incurred any liability to the appellant or any such liability is subsisting. In order to operate as an acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of computing afresh period of limitation from that date there must be acknowledgement of a subsisting liability which is not already barred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es as would now come under Section 13 also were then considered under the discretionary powers of the Court under Section 5. The practice was that on rejection of the application in forma pauperis the Court gave time for Court-fee on payment of which the suit or appeal may be numbered without bar of time. Now Section 13 posits that where an application for leave to sue or appeal as an indigent person is made and that is rejected, the time spent in prosecuting that application in good faith shall be excluded. Where the applicant thereafter pays Court-fee, the Court may treat the suit or appeal as having been filed originally with full Court-fee. That provision has to be understood in the background of the legal conception that a suit or appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll be excluded if the prosecution was in good faith and Court-fee is paid. The power is specifically vested in the Court to admit the suit or appeal on payment of Court-fee for which time will, in the nature of things be granted. Section 5 is no longer tenable to such cases. What is now provided by removal of the anomaly by the insertion of Section 13 is permission after rejection of application for leave to sue or appeal as indigent persons made in good faith to register the suits or appeals on payment of the requisite Court-fee. No time limit is set out in Section 13 and it is obviously a matter of discretion of the Court as the word 'may' indicates. Court can extend time. That is only for payment of Court-fee prescribed for such .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted as an indigent person. It is the application or appeal originally filed as an indigent person along with an application for leave that is intended to be converted into a regular suit or appeal on payment of court-fee. When the application is granted, the suit or appeal will be numbered, registered and proceeded as provided in Order 33 Rule 8or Order 44 Rule 1. Rejection of an application to sue or appeal as an indigent person does not ipso facto carry with it the rejection of the suit or memorandum of appeal filed along with it. The suit or appeal is a separate document which remains for disposal after rejection of the application and the Court has power under Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure to give further time for payment of cour .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates