RAM SARUP versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 06-10-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.t 
·-
.-
. . 
.. 
.. 
RAM SARUP 
. --
v. '. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS . 
October 6, 1983 
(A. P .. SEN AND E.· S.' VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Cude of Civil Procedure i.908-0rder 44 Rule 1 & 2-,-Suit by indigent' 
person dismissed-Appeal with an application under rule· I filed in High Couri · 
for permission- to appeal as an indigent person-Application under rule 1 disposed 
·ofby_a one word order •dismissed'-~pplicalion made for permission. to pay 
C.ourt fee and prosecute appeal.....:. This application also di$missed, on ground earlier 
application dismissed on. 111'erits-Such order- Whether valid ~d justified. 
The Code of Civil Procedure '(Amendment) Acl 1976 (Act No. 104 of 
1976)~0rder 44 Rule I & 2 C. P. C.-Amendment of-Explained. 
The appelli!.nt filed ta suit as an indigent persori in.t_he Subordin3:te Court 
questioning the validity of an· order dismissing him from service. The said 
auit was dismissed after contest. He filed an appeal in the High court as a · 
pauper along with an application un.der Rule 1 of Order 44 Code Of Civil 
Prodecure requesting that he may be' all~wed to appeal as an indigent person. 
The application was dismissed by a Single judge by a one word order, 
1'dismissed". The itppellant thereupon m·ade an application praying for 
permission tO pay the requisite court fee and t:o presecute the appeal. That 
--application was also dismissed by the saffie Judge oO the ground thai as the 
applic'ation for leave to· appeal as an indigent person was dismissed on merits~ 
and not on the groUnd that the ·applicant was not an -indigeii.t person, there 
"'.as no question of granting time to the applicant to pay court fee. 
Allowing tho .Appeal to this Court i 
HELD : I (i) The Order of.the High Court is, clearly, unsustainable. 
What was rejected in the instant case was the application under Rule 1 of 
Order 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High· Court ·should have 
therefore made all order as required by ·Rule 2 granting time to the appellant 
to.pay the requisite court fee and permit him to prosecute the appeal. The 
High ·Court failed to do so even when ail application was made for that 
purpose. (280 G-HJ 
(ii) The High.Court has lost sight of the elf.Ct -of the amendment of 
Rule 1 of.Order 44 of the Code of Civil Procedufe by the omissie:n of the 
former sub-rule (2) ~f Ruic !. [280 DJ 
2. After the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Code of 
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976, (Act No. 104of1976) ·which came 
into force with effect from February 1, 19.77 the rejection of the application 
l 
.. 
A 
-B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
stiP!uir.!B cotlR't ruirloRTs 
I 1984 J 1 s.c.&. 
' 
. 
• 
.•.J ,, ·t. 
..... ~..... 
..~ 
made under Rule I of Order 44 of the Code of. Civil Procedure can· only mean 
that the Court is not satisfied about the claim Or the applicant that he
1is an 
indigellt person and nothirig more. It does n~t,·however, amount to a finding· 
that the appeal is not a fit one for admission on merits. Otherwise Rule 2 of 
Order 44 which PerlititS, PaYmerit tir co'Ur"t ree 8fter the application under 
Rule I is re]ected, would become meaningless. [277 G; 280 D-E} 
3 (i) By the amendment made in the year 1976 sub-rule (2) of Rule I ·of 
Order 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure was deleted. The result is that when 
an applicatiorl' l1Ddei RuiC 1 of Order 44 of the Code of Ci~il Procedure comes 
up for hearing, the Only question to b.e considered is whether the applicant is 
a.ri fridig-Cni.Pf:rsiJn Or not. AnY queStion felating to the merit's of the case 
d·oes'tiot' aiise.fOr cOnSideratic}n.'· at that stage. If the application is ~ranted, 
then' the inCinOfindUm Of 8.PpCat·woutd haVe to be registered aS an appeal and 
diSPoS1ed.'0fin;accorda'nce With Jaw. When the ap°peal is posted.for adffiission 
tli'e· app~frarit ha·s· t'ci satisfy the Court ihat the" appeal meritS 3dn1iSsiOn. At 
that stage
1the aPPellatit may dra-W tiie a:ttentio~· of the Court nOt' nle:reiY to the 
judgment and decree appealed from but also .to all the relevant r.ecords in the 
CaSe to' sUtiStintiite his c1ailll' that tbe·-appea1 deserves to be admitted. 
. 
. 
· [279 o:H;'280 A-BJ 
(ii)' Rule 2' of Order 44 as it noW stands requires that viihere an appli~ 
cation is rejected under Rule I. thereof, the Court may While rejecting the · 
aP~lic3.tiori, alloW the aPPlicant to pay the requisite c·ourt fee within such 
ticrle aS'nia"Y be fiXed· by the Court or e~teaded by it from time to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.