P (PLP)

ORDER.‑Mst. Sarwar Jan on 24th April,.1950, instituted a suit against Mst. Hazrat Begum and Fazal Karim for possession by partition of a shop and for the recovery of Rs 1,650 out of Rs. 2,200, alleged to be in deposit with Fazal Karim defendant No. 2 along with the plaint she made an application that she may be permitted to sue as a pauper, because she is not possessed of sufficient means to enable her to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in question. The learned Senior Sub‑Judge sent the case for disposal to Sub‑Judge 1st class Nowshera, in whose Court it was received on 26th April, 1950. On that date it was ordered that it should be put up on 4th May, 1.950. Originally the application of the plaintiff for permission to sue in forma pauperis was not ,accompanied by a schedule of the movable or immovable property belonging to the applicant with the estimated value thereof, which, she was required by law to annex to it. She, however, put in this schedule on 4th May, 1950. It was properly verified. The learned trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties on the question whether Mst. 9arwar Jan was a pauper or not. After the conclusion of the evidence the Court on 21st December, 1950 i.e. about eight months after the institution of the suit, dis. missed the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis on the technical grounds that the schedule was not annexed to the original application, and that it was not presented by the peti tioner in person. Mst. Sarwar Jan had come up on revision to the Court against the above order. I may point out here that under O. XXXIII role 5 Civil Pro cedure Code, after the application for permission to sue as a Pauper is made, it is the primary duty of the Court to see if the law has been complied with, and if it finds that it has not been, it should reject the application forthwith. It has to proceed further and give notice to the opposite party and the Government Pleader for receiving the evidence of the applicant, which the latter might adduce in proof of the pauperism only if it does not reject the appli cation under the above provision of law. In the case before me, the learned trial Judge did not go into the question whether the application complied with the requirement of law or not at the time when it was made. He proceeded with the application under O. XXXIII rule 6 Civil Procedure Code at recorded the entire evidence, and after having done so, be rejected the application under O. XXXIII rule 5, Civil Procedure Code. Strictly speaking the order may not be illegal; but it certainly entailed the unnecessary waste of time and money, because if the application had been rejected on the technical grounds at the time when it was made the parties would not have been put to the expense of producing the witnesses, and wasting their time for full eight months. It is the bounden duty of the Courts to see that their time and the time of the litigants, who are just as much busy as they themselves are, should not unnecessarily be wasted. It is high time that the Courts realized this duty of theirs because they are living in the free State. No doubt, the schedule was not annexed, as has already been pointed out, to the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis, but then nowhere does the law lay down that the schedule should necessarily be presented at the same time as the applications to sue as a pauper, and under no circumstance can it be done later on. The object underlying O. XXXIII is only to ascertains whether the petitioner is able to pay the Court‑fee requisite for the suit or not. It is not meant to punish the applicant unnecessarily. In my view annexing the schedule subsequently to the application to sue as a pauper is a sufficient compliance of law, and in the case before me the required schedule was as a matter of fact annexed to the application on the 4th of May, 1950, when the case came up for hearing for the first time before the learned trial judge. The second ground on which the application has been rejected is that the schedule was not presented in person by Mst. Sarwar Jan, although the application was so presented. Nowhere was it alleged by any one on the record that the schedule was not present ed in person by Mst. Sarwar Jan. The perusal of the file shows that on 4th May, 1950, Mst. Sarwar Jan bad herself given a power of attorney to her counsel Ghulam Haider Khan, who on the same day presented the schedule in Court. From this fact I conclude that Mst. Sarwar Jan must have been present in Court when the schedule was presented. The failures of the Court to write her presence in the order is no proof of the fact that Mst. Sarwar Jan was not present there. In any case, I think in all probability Mst. Sarwar Jan was present with Ghulam Haider Khan when the schedule was presented,` and it was, therefore, perfectly in accordance with law, and could not have been rejected on that ground either. The result is that I accept this petition, set aside the order of the learned trial Court, and send the case back to it to dispose of the application on merits costs to follow the event. Pleader's fee Rs.

20. K. M. A Petition accepted.