ORDER
1. This revision by kewal Krishnan plaintiff is directed against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 15-11-1966, whereby the petitioner-plaintiff’s application for permission to sue as a pauper was disallowed.
2. The trail Court on 26-3-1966, called for a report from the Collector on the petitioner’s application under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil P. C. The report was required to be sent to the Court by 12-5-1966. After several hearings, on 15-11-1966, the learned Subordinate Jsudge, in the presence of the counsel both for the plaintiff and for the defendant, considered the report fo the Collector and on the basis of that report, disallowed the plaintiff’s application. The report, which is really made by a Naib-Tehsildar, and is dated 16-5-1966, reads as under:-
“This is a pauper case filed by Sh. Kewal Krishnan s/o Shri Nathu Ram. He was called inthis office and his statement was recorded. He gave two witnesses in support of his statement. From the staement of the petitioner, it appears that he (has) seven brothers who are employed and his father is also doing some business. The Petitioner himself is a earning member. With the earning of the petitioner and help from his brothers he can arrange for the Court-fees stamp charges.
In view of the above. I cannot recommendhis case and I amin view that he can easily arrange forthe Court-fees stamp charges.”
This report was sent on to the Tehsildar, who forwarded to the A. D. M. (Judicial) who sent it on to the Court.
3. This, IN my view, is a hardly satisfacttory way of dealing with pauper applications. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is expected itself to hold an enquiry into the question of payperism. The report from the Collector is to be called for incases where the Collector is supposed to bebetter fitted to hold enquires. Such is not the case before me. Only if the learned Sub-ordinate judge had cared to look at the report. He would have discovered that a report of this type can hardly be proper material for holding that the petitioner-plaintiff has sufficient means to be able to pay court-fee. One outstanding error which underlies the repot of the Naib-Tehsidar is that he has taken into account the financial capacity of the petitioner’s nrothers and father. This, normally speaking, is not to be taken into account. In Sharan Singh v. Mt. Man Kaur Air 1929 Lah. 746(2), it was observed by Tek Chand, J. That in dealing with pauper applications. The capacity of the plaintiff himself to pay the court-fee andnot that of his next friend or relations is to be considered. In the reported case, the menas of the adoptive father, the natural father and uncle of the minor-plaintiff were taken into account. This was held to be a material irregularity and the High Court allowed the revision. In Mohammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Bibi Air 1946 Lah. 81 Abdur Rahman. J. Also observed that i n case ofa minor plaintiff, his resources are to be considered and the fact that his next friend is fairly rich, is immaterial. There too, the revision was allowed, as the court below was held to have acted with material irregularity. This view seemsto me to be correct.
4. In the case in hand, so far as the plaintiff’s own resources areconcerned, there is precious little to be said insupport of the Naib-Tehsildar’s report. The Court cannot, however, blindly and automaticallty adopt the report which is only to help the Court in judicially determining the ability of the plaintiff to pay court-fee. Itisa matter for regret that the Tehsildar and the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) did not apply their own mind to the report of the Naib-Tehsildar and forwarded the same as if with their approval. It must be remembered that the issue of pauperism is to be decided by the Court and delegation and sub-delegation of this duty and power is not easy to sustain. Thelearned Sub-ordinate Judge has completely ignored this vital aspect and has dealt with the matter, in common with the A. D. M. (Judicial), the Tehsildar and the Naib-Tehsildar, more in an administrative than in a judicial manner, Such a course cannot be approved by this Court.
5. For all the foregoing reasons, Iunhesitatingly allow this revision and setting aside the order of the Court below, send the cvase back to it for a proper judicial enquiry into the plaintiff petitioner’s pauperism and for further proceedings in accordance with law as contained in Order 33, Civil P. C. The plaintiff-pettioner is directed to appear in the Court below on 28-10-1968 when a short date would be given for further proceedings. As there is no appearance for the respondent, there is no order as to costs in the Court.
6. Revision allowed.