ORDER D.S. Sinha, J.
1. This Civil Revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code, is directed against the order dated 5th May, 1989, passed by the Civil Judge, Hapur, in original Suit No. 377 of 1980, permitting the plaintiff in the suit and opposite party first set in the instant revision to sue as pauper.
2. Sri M. D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, has advanced following two contentions to assail the impuged order:
(a) the court below permitted the opposite party to sue as indigent person in contravention of the provisions of Order XXXIII of the Code inasmuch as there was no proper application on behalf of the plaintiff opposite-party as envisaged by the provisions of Order XXXIII of the Code;
(h) the impugned order is in contravention of the order dated 20th January, 1989, passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 283 of 1982, arising out of the suit giving rise to this revision.
3. This Court, while allowing the Revision No. 283 of 1982 aforesaid, had allowed the application of the plaintiff-opposite party for amendment. The amendment application, inter alia, sought permission to add a paragraph in the plaint of the suit in the following terms :
"26-C. That the Trust (waqf) in question is not possessed of sufficient means other than the disputed property to enable it to pay the court-fees prescribed by law. Hence this suit being filed as a suit by indigent person."
4. The contention of the learned counsel that the impugned order is in contravention of the order of this Court i.e. 20th January, 1984 does not appear to be sound. The court has carefully examined the order dated 20th January, 1984, passed in the revision, the amendment application which was allowed by the Court and also the order impugned in the instant revision, and is unable to find any conflict with the order of this Court dated 20th January, 1984. In this view of the matter the order, impugned in the revision, is not open to challenge on the basis of the first contention.
5. So far as the contention of the learned counsel that the court below has permitted the plaintiff to sue as indigent person in contravention of Order XXXIII of the Code is concerned it is not necessary for the Court to go into that question, inasmuch as the revision is liable to fail for the reason that in the instant case the requirements of the second proviso to Section 115 of the Code, as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, are not satisfied.
6. The second proviso to Section 115 of the Code reads thus :
"Provided further that the High Court or the District Court shall not under this Section, vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where,--
(i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or
(ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made."
7. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision it is clear that no interference under Section 115 of the Code can be made unless it is shown that the order, if varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.
8. In the instant case it cannot be said that the impugned order, if varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit. Likewise, it cannot be contended that the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the applicant inasmuch as the matter of payment of court-fee, it is well settled, is a matter between the State and the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit cannot be said to suffer any injury in case the plaintiff is exempted from paying the court-fee.
9. For what has been said above the Court finds that this revision lacks merit, and has no force. It is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
10. A copy of this order may be supplied to the learned counsel for the applicants on payment of necessary charges at an early date.