' Abdul Hameed filed a suit for recovery of Rs,1,62,000 in Forma pauperis personally before the Civil Judge, Chunian on 25-3-1990. The plaintiff-respondent No,1 was examined by Court the same day and vide order dated 25-3-1990 the request for entertaining the suit forma pauperis was disallowed and the same was dismissed. Respondent No,1 filed a revision petition in the District Court which was heard and accepted by the Additional District Judge, Chaunian. The petitioner was declared as pauper and it was further ordered that the suit be registered in forma pauperis and further proceedings in accordance with law shall be carried out. The parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 20-3-1991.
2. The file was remitted to the trial Court where the learned counsel for the parties appeared. The suit was ordered to be registered in forma pauperis and the present petitioners were directed to file their reply. The present petitioner challenged the order of the Additional District Judge dated 10- 31991 on the ground of its being without lawful authority.
3. Copy of the plaint has been enclosed with the writ petition. It is so mentioned in the said plaint that the present petitioners had sold out agriculture land measuring 119 Kanals being 119/519 shares of Khewat No,136 as entered in Register Haqdaran for the year 1984 85 for the village NosharahTehsil Chunian under registered sale-deed dated 27-8-1989 as against a sale price of Rs,1,50,000 and Rs,12,000 were claimed as registration charges.
4. The land which was sold out to the plaintiff/respondent No,1 was held out to be free from all encumbrance and the vendors/present petitioners had held out that in case there be found a defect in their title the vendee/respondent Not shall be indemnified and the vendors/petitioners shall be personally liable for the same.
5. The suit land was alleged to have been allotted to one Ahmad All who had constituted one Abdul Ghafoor Saleemi son of Shah Wali Saleemi as his general attorney. Ahmad All allottee died on 17-7- 1963 and the said attorney, with the full knowledge of the death of the principal, further constituted Muhammad Hussain Khan as special attorney who sold out the said land under sale-deed attested on 29-10-1965 to Bakhtawar Lal Hussain etc. And subsequently the title travelled down to the defendants/present petitioners who sold out the same to respondent No,1. Under a sale-deed duly registered with Sub-Registrar on 27-8-1987, Sale Mutation No,630 of the estate was accordingly attested on 21-3-1988, incorporating the name of the plaintiff/respondent No,1 in the column of ownership.
6. On appeal by heirs of the allottee, Collector Chunian had cancelled the transaction of sale, executed on 29-10-1985, ostensibly by the Special Attorney whose constituent i,e, the General Attorney had already lost his authority due to the demise of Ahmad Ali. The cancellation order was passed on 28-7-1986 but was not given effect to in the revenue record earlier to the sale in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No,1. Mutation No,631 was however attested in implementation of the order passed by the Collector on 7-6-1986 and the ownership in the name of Ahmad Ali was thus restored and plaintiff/respondent No,1 lost the title as all transfers subsequent to 17-7-1963 were void.
7. The writ petitioners have not denied the factum of sale having been made by them to respondent No,1 in the writ petition and are contesting the impugned order on technical ground alone.
8. The order of the Additional District Judge dated 10-3-1991 has been perused. While setting aside the order dated 25-3-1990, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in forma pauperis, illegally, he, had directed the trial Court to register the suit as forma pauperis and to take further proceedings in accordance with law.
9. The Revisional Court was well within its jurisdiction to observe that the grounds taken by the trial Court were extraneous and that the same was passed without the report of the collector. Order in revision is maintained to the extent of its set aside the order of trial Court dated 25-3-1990.
10. The Revisional Court however declared plaintiff respondent No,1 as pauper without himself following the procedure. The plaintiff could only be declared pauper after recording of evidence as laid down in Rules 6 and 7 of Order XXXIII, C.P.C.
11. The upshot of the discussion above is that the order of Revisional Court is declared to be absolutely legal and with jurisdiction to the extent that it had set aside the orders of the trial Court dated 25-3-1990 The impugned order, so far as it declared the plaintiff as pauper was without jurisdiction and lawful authority. The said order shall be considered to be one holding that there was no reason for the trial Court to reject the application on any of the grounds stated in Rule 5 and thus the trial Court shall proceed under Rules 6 and 7 of Order XXXIII, C.P.C. The writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms. The impugned order of the. Revisional Court to the extent of declaring the plaintiff as pauper is thus without lawful authority.
12. The copy of this judgment shall be sent to the trial Court who shall take up the proceedings immediately. Five years have already gone by. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the suit expeditiously and shall conclude the same in accordance with law within a period of 6 months. In case the suit be not disposed of within the fixed period the trial Court shall make a report to this Court explaining reasons therefor. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.