2012 PLP 560 (MLD)

IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.

Through the instant Civil Revision Petition the petitioner has called in question the order dated 28-4-2010 passed by the learned ADJ, Toba Tek Singh whereby the application of the petitioner under Order XXXIII Rules 1, 3 CPC has been dismissed wherein permission has been sought to file the appeal as pauper appeal on the ground that the petitioner is a labourer and a poor person and except the wearing apparels he has no other item and financial source, in view of which he was unable to affix the court fee, as such his appeal be entertained as a pauper appeal.

2. Brief facts revealing from the instant petition are that respondents had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,20,000 against the petitioner before learned Civil Court, Toba Tek Singh which was decreed through judgment and decree dated 15-10-2009. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree before the learned Appellate Court along with an application with the prayer to treat his appeal as pauper appeal. Learned ADJ, Toba Tek Singh referred the same to Tehsildar to inquire about the financial status, monthly income and movable and immovable property of the petitioner. The Tehsildar, Toba Tek Singh sent his report dated 27-3-2010 by stating therein that the petitioner is unmarried, he has no movable or immovable property and he works under a veterinary dispenser and lives with his parents. It is stated that on receiving the report of Tehsildar, arguments were addressed and learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 28-4-2010 dismissed the said application of the petitioner and directed him to affix the court fee of Rs.9100.

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revenue officials duly conducted inquiry and thereafter declared that the petitioner has no movable or immovable property and works under veterinary dispenser, in view of the same the appeal should have been entertained as pauper appeal by following the said application of the petitioner. In this regard reliance has been placed upon Mst. Malook Bibi v. Additional District Judge and others (2005 CLC 1613) and Lal Hussain and another v. Muhammad Suleman and another (2001 MLD 117).

4. On the other hand this petition has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the respondents had filed a suit for recovery of amount Rs.1,20,000 on account of supply of chicks to the petitioner which were purchased by the petitioner as he was owner of the poultry farm which he had established and along with the same he had been working as independent A.I. Technician as is apparent from the I.D. card of his company which had been duly exhibited in the learned trial court. Further stated that in the suit for recovery, a counsel for the instant petitioner represented the petitioner who belongs to District, Faisalabad and all his expenses during the trial were borne by the petitioner. He also filed the appeal before the ADJ, Toba Tek Singh as well as the instant civil revision petition before this Court through the present counsel by bearing all the expenses of the case plus travelling expenditures of his counsel from Faisalabad to Lahore. In view of which the petitioner on any account cannot be held to be a pauper.

5. Arguments pro and contra heard, record made available on the file perused.

6. The learned Appellate Court has duly taken into consideration the factum of litigation between the parties which reveals that the petitioner was running a poultry farm and had been purchasing poultry feed and chicks from different dealers and one of them being respondents from whom chicks had been purchased by the petitioner who defaulted thereafter for the payment of the same, in consequent upon, suit for recovery had been filed by the respondents. Further, the petitioner is also animal husbandry technician, in view of which the learned appellate court came to the opinion that it was only to avoid the payment of court fee as well as decretal amount and the petitioner with mala fide intention is claiming himself to be a pauper. Moreover, the petitioner throughout the litigation, even the instant civil revision petition has been represented by a counsel from Faisalabad whose fee and travelling expenses etc. are being borne by the petitioner, even on this account the petitioner cannot be considered to be a pauper.

7. On the touchstone of the above discussion, this court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which is to be interfered by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, hence this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. K.M.Z./Q-4/L Petition dismissed.