ORDER
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. The first I.A. 12662/2000 is an application, field by the defendants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC for condensation of delay. After perusing the reason stated in the application, which I find are sufficient to explain the delay, the delay in filing the application, IA. 12661/2000 by the defendants for review of Order dated 22.5.2000, passed in I.P.A. No. 2/2000 is condoned. IA stands disposed of.
2. The second IA 12661/2000 is an application, filed by the defendants under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for review of the Order of this Court dated 22.5.2001 by which this Court after hearing the counsel for the applicant/plaintiff and perusing the Joint Registrar’s Report dated 6th of April 2000 allowed the application, I.P.A. 2/2000, filed by the plaintiff/applicant to sue as an indigent person.
3. This application seeks the review of this Order on the plea that according to the provisions of Rule 6 & 7 of the Order XXXIII CPC, 10 days’ notice was required to be given of this application to the defendants as well as to the Govt. Pleader and the order as to pauperism could only be passed after recording evidence as may be adduced by the parties.
4. The plaintiff’s claim is for maintenance and arises from her plea that she was married to defendant No.1, a Non-Resident Indian, settled in the United States of America, who was on a lookout for an Indian bridge. She gave up her promising career in India to marry the defendant No.1 in Delaware (USA) on 23rd April, 1999. On 25th April, 1999 in spite of the plaintiff’s farther having spent all his savings for the U.S. trip and the gifts given in marriage, a further demand of Rs. 10 lacs in cash was raised as a precondition for the plaintiff’s stay with defendant No.1. On 11th May, 1999, the plaintiff was flown to India by the defendants’ and since then has had no support of any ind monetary or otherwise from the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, father of defendant No.1, who is also settled tin the United States of America. This led to the filing of the present suit for maintenance and interim orders were passed in the said suit including the Order dated 22.5.2000 sought to be reviewed by this application.
5. This Court on 4th May, 20001 was pleased to order that without prejudice to the plaintiff’s plea that the applications are not maintainable, 25th May, 2001 was fixed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. The defendant/review applicants we also permitted to produce their evidence. On 4th May, 2001, court notice was also issued to counsel for Delhi Administration for 25th May, 2001. Thus on that day ten days notice was given in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 & 7 of Order XXXIII CPC which according to the defendants had been violated. Thereafter on 19th July, 2001, the plaintiff/Mrs. Indira Sonti was cross-examined by the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants in respect of the statement made by her before the Joint Registrar(O) of this Court on 6th of April, 2000. This was done on the plea of the learned Senior Counsel, Shri V.P. Chaudhary, treating the statement of the plaintiff before the Joint Registrar as the basis for cross-examination.
6. Though there was merit in the plea of the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant that there was no compliance of Rules 6 & 7 of Order XXXIII CPC, which may have warranted a review of the Order dated 22.5.2000, the compliance of Rules 6 & 7 of Order XXXIII CPC is now done as from 4th May, 2001, notice as prescribed by sub-sections 6 & 7 of Order XXXIII CPC had been received by the defendants/applicants as well as counsel for Delhi Administration. The statement, made by the plaintiff before the Joint Registrar(O) on 6th of April, 2000 was treated as her examination-in-chief and the plaintiff was cross-examined by the defendants/applicants on the basis of the said statement. It was emerged from the said cross-examination that the plaintiff was employed up to 1999 at the salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month and the only benefit which she received on resignation from the said job was provident fund dues of about Rs. 45,000/-. She has also stated that at present she has only a joint account with her father having a balance of Rs. 2,000/- and she does not have any other bank account or any other fixed deposit. She also denied the suggestion of the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants that she was gainfully employed. The cross-examination of the plaintiff has failed to weaken the stand taken by the plaintiff enabling her qualification to sue as an indigent person.
7. In view of this statement, I am satisfied that while the Order dated 22nd May, 2001 was liable to be reviewed on the grounds urged in the present application, in spite of the fact that even after cross-examination of the plaintiff and the due compliance of Rules 6 & 7 of Order XXXIII CPC, the defendant/applicants have been unable to elicit anything which shows that the Order dated 22nd May, 2000 deserves to be altered, recalled or set aside. I am, therefore, satisfied that upon perusing the statement of the plaintiff and the cross-examination by the defendants/applicants as recorded by this Court on 19th of July, 2001, the Order of 22nd May, 2000, allowing I.P.A. No. 2/000, filed by the plaintiff for granting permission to sue as an indigent person/pauperis, passed in favor of the plaintiff need not be altered or set aside.
8. In view of the above, the application accordingly stands disposed of.