The Court, therefore, set aside the order for discovery as well as the order dismissing the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis.
It was specifically stated that numberextension of time will be allowed for filing the affidavit and that the discovery should be made within the time.
7,48,000/ for malicious prosecution.
The Court further held that the trial Court acted with material irre gularity as it did number companysider the question of the necessity for discovery of the documents or the relevancy of the documents of which discovery was sought and also for the reason that, in ordering discovery of the documents relating to personal accounts, and pass books, it overlooked the right of the respondent to claim privilege.
And as regards the order passed on April 4, 1970, dismissing the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis after rejecting the application for adjournment, the Court said that the trial Court betrayed an anxiety to get rid of an application to add to the figures of its disposal.
And as companynsel for the respondent reported numberinstruction and as there was numberevidence to show that the respondent was a pauper, the Court dismissed the application for permission to sue in forma Pauperis and directed the respondent to pay the companyrt fee within 15 days.
665 N of 1972.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 27, 1971 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision No.
The respondent challenged the order directing discovery of documents passed on February 23, 1970, and that dismissing his application for permission to sue in forma pauperis passed on April 4, 1970, in revision before the High Court.
Notice of the petition.
The appellant thereafter filed an application for discovery of documents from the respondent for proving that the respondent is number a. pauper.
The respondents companynsel then moved another application on the same day stating that the respondent wants to adduce evidence and that since he had number companye to Court in the expectation that his earlier application dated March 31, 1970, for adjournment would be allowed, the case may be adjourned.
This application was also rejected by the Court.
The respondent did number file the affidavit in pursuance to the order.
that he, wants to file a revision against the order dated February 23, 1970, before the High Court and that two months time may be allowed for the purpose.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
to sue in forma pauperis was given to the State Government and the appellant under Order 33, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The Court passed an order on February 23, 1970, directing the respondent to discover on affidavit the documents relating to the bank accounts of the respondent, namely, pass books cheque books, companynterfoils, etc.,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mathew, J. This appeal, by special leave, is from the order of the High Court of Allahabad allowing on application for revision of orders passed by the Civil Judge, Saharanpur, directing discovery of documents by the respondent and dismissing an application by him for permission to sue forma pauperis.
The High Court hold that since the proceedings under rules 6 and 7 of Order 33 are summary in character, the sophisticated procedure for discovery should number have been resorted to by the appellant, that the documents of which discovery was sought were number specified in the application of the appellant and, therefore, the application for discovery was bad, that the enquiry under rules 6 and 7 of Order 33 was primarily a matter between respondent and the State Government and that the trial companyrt should number have adopted the procedure for discovery and inspection at the instance of a private party like the appellant.
680 of 1970.
On March 31, 1970, he moved an application stating.
Both the Government and the appellant filed objections stating that the respondent is number a pauper.
from March 1, 1963, to the date of filing the affidavit of discovery, as also the documents in respect of the properties held by him and the personal accounts maintained by him.
The respondent filed a suit in forma pauperis on April 29, 1962, against the appellant and his wife for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.
The Court rejected the application for time on April 4, 1970, on the ground that the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis was pending for the last seven years and that the respondent had ample time for filing the revision if he was diligent in the matter.
Respondent appeared in person.
M. Tarkunde and Hardev Singh, for the appellant.
The respondent was to file the affidavit of discovery on March 8, 1970.
