Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 27

Order XXXIII, rule 11

1. The change proposed is consequential.1

2. The question whether a dismissal under Order IX, rule 3 or Order IX, rule 5 should be expressly mentioned in Order XXXIII, rule 11 has been considered. The Madras Amendment to Order XXXIII, rule 11, which deals elaborately with a claim being abandoned in part, has also been considered. That amendment further makes a provision that where the plaintiff is dispaupered, the court may order the plaintiff to pay the requisite court-fee within the requisite time and in default dismiss the suit and make an order for court-fee as in the existing rules. It is, however, considered unnecessary to make these changes of a minor character.

1. See Order VII, rule 9 (proposed).

Order XXXIII, rule 15 and costs

Order XXXIII, rule 15 allows the filing of a second suit where the application to sue as a pauper is refused. But the condition for the second suit is that the applicant "first pays the costs" of the Government and the opposite party incurred in opposing the application. Whether this payment of costs is a condition precedent to the very institution of the second suit is a matter on which the position is not clear from decisions.1-2-3 The word "first" would indicate a condition precedent. It is considered that there should be a power in the court to give time (in suitable cases) for payment of the costs. If such a power is given, the word "first " should be omitted. Necessary change is proposed.

1. Shiam Sundar Lal v. Savitri Kunwar, AIR 1935 All 723.

2. Abdul Rehman v. Aminabi, AIR 1943 Born 409.

3. Ram Krishna v. Vandaya, AIR 1936 Mad 24.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys