Case Details

Citation(s)
1973 SLG 267 1973 SLD 267 = 1973 PLD 594

Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 1972, decided on 7th March 1973.
Dorab Patel and Abdul Hayee Kureshi, .7J

RIZVI TRADERS LTD.--Appellant

VERSUS

J. TYLER & Co., LTD. AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents

Law:

Section:

ABDUL HAYEB KURESHI, J.-This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed against an order of my learned brother Ghulam Rasool K. Sheikh, J., who in -Misc. Appln. No. 7/1971 has held that a private company can file a suit in forma pauperis. A suit was filed by Messrs J. Tyler & Co. Ltd., against United Bank Ltd., the present appellant, Rizvi Traders Ltd, and two others. An objection was raised before the Registrar (C. S,) to the effect that a limited company could not file a suit in forma pauperis and since there were conflicting authorities on the point and a total absence of authoritative decision of any superior Court of Pakistan, the matter was referred to the Court for decision, The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the word "person" as used in Order XXXIII, C. P. C. applies not only to natural persons but also to juristic persons. Aggrieved by this order, the appeal came to be filed. Mr. Farhat Ali has appeared for the appellant, whereas Mr. Mansoor Ahmad Khan and Mr. K. A. Ghani have appeared for respondents.   The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that a company is not a "person" within the meaning or Order XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Code, and therefore, could not sue as a pauper. The learned Advocate has stated that interpretation of rule 3 of Order XXXIII supports such conten tion because a company by its very existence and nature can neither present a plaint nor answer questions as contemplated by the said rule. Reliance has also been placed on the explana tion appended to rule 1 of Order XXXIII, C. P. C. which provides that a person entitled to property worth one hundred rupees ether than his necessary wearing-apparel could not sue as a pauper. The contention further is teat the opening words of rule 3 being "notwithstanding anything contained in these rules," the provisions of rule 2 are of mandatory nature so that if any person is unable to present the plaint in person or is unable to answer material questions, a suit in forma pauperis does not lie. The contention of the learned Advocate further is that a company can file a suit…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register