ARK NAVIGATION COMPANY OF PAKISTAN Ltd. and another vs Messrs ESSO
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal regarding an application to sue in forma pauperis. The petitioners sought permission to initiate a lawsuit for the recovery of Rs. 29,92,000, representing the cost of a vessel or insurance proceeds, claiming they lacked the means to pay the requisite court fees following the events of 1971 in East Pakistan. Although the Deputy Collector had verified the petitioners' financial inability, the High Court rejected the application based on the perceived merits of the underlying claim. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners had subsequently been granted permission to sue as paupers in separate proceedings involving different parties. Finding that the petitioners' pauper status had been recognized elsewhere, the Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal to examine the High Court's dismissal. The Court also condoned the delay in filing the petition, subject to future exceptions, and directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents.
- Can an application to sue in forma pauperis be rejected based on the merits of the underlying claim?
- Does a previous declaration of pauper status in separate proceedings impact an application to sue as a pauper in a new suit?
- Order XXXIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIII Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-- This is a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 5-11-1978, dismissing petitioners' Appeal against the Order of the Additional Registrar of that Court rejecting their Application under Order XXXIII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. By that application petitioners sought permission to sue the respondent, in forma pauparis, for recovery of Rs, 29,92,000, being the cost of vessel M.V. Esso ARK, or in the alternate, the amount of insurance recovered for the loss of the Vessel, etc. ' In support of their application, petitioners asserted that after the fall of East Pakistan at the end of year 1971, they have been left with no source and means to pay the requisite court-fee of Rs,. 15,000.
2. It seems that this assertion was not controverted, in fact the Deputy Collector, Karachi, in his report dated 10-10-1975, forwarded to, the High Court, supported petitioners' assertion. The High Court, however, upheld the order of the Additional Registrar rejecting petitioners' request on points which related to the merits of petitioners' claim in suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced before us al copy of the order of Additional Registrar of the High Court, dated 22-3-1980, in J. Miscellaneous Application No, 32 of 1972, by which petitioners have been permitted to sue certain different parties in forma pauperis.
4. ' Since in another proceeding, petitioners have been declared as pauper this case deserves examination.
5. ' Special Leave is granted. Security Rs, 500.
6. ' Delay in filing of the petition is condoned, subject to all just exceptions that may be taken at the hearing.
7. ' Appeal to be made ready on the present record; it is, however, open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.