Question: ‘A’ presented an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis but ‘A’ dies pending the hearing of the application. Can the application be continued by ‘B’ who is a legal representative of ‘A? Give reasons. [U.P. C.J. 1982 and 1999] Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [‘A’ presented an application for leave to sue in… Read More »

Question: ‘A’ presented an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis but ‘A’ dies pending the hearing of the application. Can the application be continued by ‘B’ who is a legal representative of ‘A? Give reasons. [U.P. C.J. 1982 and 1999] Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [‘A’ presented an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis but ‘A’ dies pending the hearing of the application. Can the application be continued by ‘B’ who is a legal representative...

Question: ‘A’ presented an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis but ‘A’ dies pending the hearing of the application. Can the application be continued by ‘B’ who is a legal representative of ‘A? Give reasons. [U.P. C.J. 1982 and 1999]

Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [‘A’ presented an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis but ‘A’ dies pending the hearing of the application. Can the application be continued by ‘B’ who is a legal representative of ‘A? Give reasons]

Answer

The representative of a pauper cannot continue the suit in forma paupers, if not a pauper himself. The right to sue as a pauper, being a personal right, cannot survive in the legal representative of the deceased applicant [Lalit Mohan Mandal v. Satish Chandra Das, ILR 1906) 33 Cal 1163].

In AIR 1947 Mad 405 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that where an applicant for leave to sue in forma pauperis dies during the pendency of his application, his legal representative can be brought on the record and allowed to continue the suit on payment of the requisite Court-fee.

In Kaveri v. Yerohi [51 Mad 697] the Madras High Court held that if the application to sue as forma paupris is presented for leave and the applicant dies during the pendency of hearing of the application then it cannot be continued by the legal representative of such indigent person because it is a private right. But if a legal representative is also an indigent person, he can file another application.

However, the legal representatives may be allowed to be brought on record on payment of the court fees or they may file a separate application for leave to sue in forma pauperis if the right to sue had survived them. [C.G. Devaraju Naidu And Anr. v. T.M. Prabhuviah And Ors, AIR 1953 Kant 57]

In Padmanablan v. Subramoniam, AIR 1953 Trav Co 67, a Division Bench of that High Court has held that from Rule 1 and 2 of Order XXXIII it is clear that the presentation of an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis amounts to be the situation of a suit, and where the pauper applicant dies his legal representative cannot continue the pauper application as the pauperism is personal to the applicant but the legal representative can be permitted to continue the suit on payment of the pre-requisite Court-fee.

Thus, in view of the decisions given by the aforementioned High Courts in the above-referred cases, it is clear that in the proposition at hand, ‘B’ who is the legal representative of ‘A’ cannot continue the application presented by ‘A’ for leave to sue as forma paupris but if he is himself an indigent person, he can file another application for leave to sue as forma paupris.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

Updated On 2022-04-03T06:53:34+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story