Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Revision No. 423 of 1972, decided on 4th June 1979.
---- O. ITI, r. 4(2)-Power of attorney-Revocation-Counsel's state ment that he has no instructions from client-Held, no ground for revocation of his power of attorney and client duly represented by such counsel.-[Counsel and client-Power of Attorney].
----- O. XXXIII, r. 7(l)-Application for permission to sue in forma pauperis dismissed on recommendation of Collector, without examining witnesses-Procedure prescribed under r. 7(1) regarding examination of petitioner's witnesses-Held, mandatory and order dismissing application without following such procedure illegal-Dismissal, held, also illegal.
F. K. Kureshi for Appellant.
Syed Niaz Ali Shah for Respondents.
Date of hearing; 4th June, 1979.
Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no instruction from the respondents probably for the reason that they do not want to keep aim their counsel. This is no ground for allowing revocation of the Power of Attorney of the learned counsel nor a ground for holding that the respondents are not duly represented.
2. This is a revision petition against an order dated the 26th April, 1972, directing the petitioner to deposit court-fee after dismissing his application 'or permission to sue in forma pauperis.
3. The only ground dismissing that application is that the Collector, n his report dated the 24th June, 1971, bad recommended that he should no be declared to be a pauper. This is no ground for dismissing the said application Rule 7 of Order XXXIII, C. P. C. provides in sub-rule (1) for examination of the witnesses of the petitioner. The learned Court bas not followed this procedure which is mandatory. It has acted illegally and with material irregularity by ignoring this provision.
4. The revision petition is therefore is therefore allowed, the order of the learned trial Court is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to decide the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis, in accordance with law.
It appears that respondent No. 2 had not contested the matter on the date when impugned order was passed. Respondent. No. 1 only shall therefore pay the costs of the petitioner.
K. M. A. Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer