JUGAL KISHORE versus DHANNO DEVI (DEAD) BY L.RS.

JUGAL KISHORE versus DHANNO DEVI (DEAD) BY L.RS.

When an application to sue as a pauper is presented and the court permits withdrawal of the pauper prayer, treating the application as a plaint and enlarges time for payment of court fee, the date of payment of fee relates back to the date of such presentation for the purposes of limitation; the suit is, therefore, not barred by limitation if it would have been in time on the date of such presentation.

Parties
Appellant: Jugal Kishore; Respondent: Dhanno Devi (Dead) by L.Rs.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 August 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India From the Judgment and Decree Dated 31 3 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 92 of 1955
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Limitation, Pauper Suits, Court Fee, Institution of Suits
Civil Procedure Limitation Pauper Suits Court Fee Institution of Suits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jugal Kishore

Appellant

Dhanno Devi (Dead) by L.Rs.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India From the Judgment and Decree Dated 31 3 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 92 of 1955

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the payment of court fee after withdrawal of pauper application and its restoration relates back to the date of presentation of the pauper application for the purpose of limitation.
  2. 2 Whether the suit was barred by limitation in light of the sequence of payment of court fee and withdrawal/restoration of application.

Ratio Decidendi

When an application to sue as a pauper is presented and the court permits withdrawal of the pauper prayer, treating the application as a plaint and enlarges time for payment of court fee, the date of payment of fee relates back to the date of such presentation for the purposes of limitation; the suit is, therefore, not barred by limitation if it would have been in time on the date of such presentation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The suit is deemed to have been filed on January 2, 1948 and is not barred by limitation.
  • Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.