UNION BANK OF INDIA versus KHADER INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 08-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

) 
\ 
A 
UNION BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
~ 
KHADER INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND ORS. 
MAY 8, 2001 
B 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder XXX/11, Rule 1 and 3~/ndigent 
person-Who is--Limited Company-Whether entitled to sue as an indigent 
c 
person-Held, Yes- "Person" includes not only the natural person but other 
juridical persons also-General Clauses Act, 1896. 
Words and Phrases 
• 
"Person "-Meaning of in the context of Order XXX/11, Rule 1 Code of 
Civil Procedure 1908. 
D 
The issue involved in the present appeal was whether respondent-limited 
company was entitled to sue as an indigent pers<>n under Order xxxm, Rule 
i of the Code 
0
of Civil Procedure. 
...... 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the word "person" 
E ·referred to in Order xxxm, Rule I of the Code refers only to natural person 
and not other juridical person and therefore, respondent-company was not 
entitled to sue as an indigent person; that under Rule 3 of Order xxxm, 
the application to sue as an indigent person should be presented to the Court 
by the applicant in person and a Public Limited ·company being a juristic 
F person cannot present an application in accordance with the said Rule; that 
under Rule 3 the person who is presenting the application must be such 
person who can answer all material questions relating to the application and 
therefore, the scheme of Order xxxm of the Code envisages only natural 
person to file the suit as an indigent person. 
G 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that a suit can be filed 
as an indigent person not only by natural persons but also by all juristic 
persons who were permitted to file a suit in that capacity; that Order XXXIII 
was a benevolent provision intended to help the litigants who were unable to 
) 
pay the court fee at the initial stage and that the said provision was to be 
H 
construed liberally; that _when a company, firm, deity, etc. were permitted to 
580 
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. K.I. CONSTRUCTON 
581 
file a suit in their juristic capacity, there was no reason why they should not A 
x 
be allowed to sue as an indigent person; that the definition of the word 'person' 
contained in the General Clauses Act would apply and that extended meaning 
was to be attributed to the word 'person' referred to in Order XXXIII. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. The word 'person' mentioned in Order XXXIII of the Code 
of Civil Procedure includes not only natural person but other juridical persons 
also. Therefore, respondent-limited company which is otherwise entitled to 
maintain a suit as a legal person can very well maintain an application as 
an indigent person under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Code. (590-B] 
c 
Peruma/ Koundan v. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoo/a Dhanasekhara 
-
Sanka Nidhi Ltd., AIR (1981) Madras 362; Genda/a/ Cotton Mills Ltd. and 
Am: v. Basant Kumaribai and Ors., AIR (1961) Bombay 1; Syed Ali v. The 
Deccan Commercial Bank Ltd., AIR (1951) Hyderabad 124; Mathew v. Kera/a 
United Corporation Ltd., AIR (1961) Kerala 181; Jogesh Chandra Bera and D 
Ors. v. Sri lswar Braja Raj Jew Thakur, AIR (1981) Calcutta 259; Shri 
+ 
Shankarji Maharaj and Anr. v. Mt. Godavaribai, Am (1935) Nagpur 209; 
Moorti Shree Behari Ji v. Prem Das and Ors., Am (1972) Allahabad 287; 
-
Chiman/a/ Bhogila/ Panchani and Anr. v. Chandanben Manchand Shah and 
Ors., Am (1965) Gujarat 207 and East Indian Coal Co. Ltd. v. East Indian 
Coal Co. Ltd. Workers Union, Am (1961) Patna 15, approved. 
E 
S.M Mitra v. Corporation of the Royal Exchange Assurance, AIR (1930) 
Rangoon 259; Associated Pictures Ltd. v. The National Studios Ltd., AIR 38 
(1951) Punjab 447; Bharat Abhyudoy Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Maharajadhiraj 
Sir Kameswar Singh, AIR (1938) Calcutta 745 and Radha Krishna Devata F 
v. Nathma/ Mohta, AIR (1963) Manipur 40, disapproved. 
1.2. Order XXXIII, CPC is an enabling provision which allows filing 
of a suit by an indigent person without paying the court fee at the initial 
stage. In the CPC, though the term 'person' occurs in several other parts, 
it is not defined in the Code. The definition of the term 'person' is given in G 
the general Clauses Act according to which such term shall include any 
company or association or body of individuals whether incorporate~ or not. 
t 
The said definition provides that the word 'person' would include both natural 
and artificial person. Any juristic person such as a company or idol
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.