Supreme Court of India

Union Bank of India v Khader International Construction

AIR 2001 SC 2277; (2001) 5 SCC 2220011 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
A public limited company applied for permission to sue the bank as an indigent person under Order XXXIII. The bank argued that "person" in Order XXXIII meant only a natural person, since R.3 requires presentation in person and examination of the applicant.
Issue
Whether a company can maintain an application under O.XXXIII R.1.
Held
Order XXXIII is a benevolent provision and is given an extended meaning. A company is represented by a person competent to represent it, just as a minor sues through a next friend, so R.3 is no obstacle. "Person" includes juristic persons. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
Principle
'Person' in Order XXXIII CPC includes a juristic person such as a public limited company
Cite this

Facts

  • A public limited company applied for permission to sue the bank as an indigent person under Order XXXIII. The bank argued that "person" in Order XXXIII meant only a natural person, since R.3 requires presentation in person and examination of the applicant.

Issue

  1. Whether a company can maintain an application under O.XXXIII R.1.

Held

  • Order XXXIII is a benevolent provision and is given an extended meaning. A company is represented by a person competent to represent it, just as a minor sues through a next friend, so R.3 is no obstacle. "Person" includes juristic persons. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

Ratio decidendi

A public limited company otherwise entitled to sue may apply to sue as an indigent person.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Cite for the meaning of "person" in Order XXXIII.

Cite this

Citation

Union Bank of India v Khader International Construction AIR 2001 SC 2277; (2001) 5 SCC 22

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1765628/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.