Case: Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International Construction

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are thus. The respondent filed a suit before theKochi, and sought permission to sue as an indigent person. The appellant herein raised objections and contended that the plaintiff being a public limited company was not a `person coming within the purview of Order XXXIII, Rule 1 CPC, and the word `person referred to therein applies only to a natural person and not to other juristic persons. The Subordinate Judge permitted theto sue as an indigent person. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a Revision and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and that judgment of the High Court is assailed in this appeal.

Reasoning: 21. Therefore, the word `person has to be given its meaning in the context in which it is used. It refers to a person who is capable of filing a suit and this being a benevolent provision, it is to be given an extended meaning. Therefore, we are of the view that a public limited company, which is otherwise entitled to maintain a suit as a legal person, can very well maintain an application under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 CPC.