ORDER Misra, J. -- 1. This is an application under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') read with Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code seeking permission to prefer an appeal as an indigent person against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 271-N2006 whereby the learned Trial Judge has decreed the suit for eviction and realization of rental amount in respect of the suit premises under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The learned Trial Judge while decreeing the suit for eviction has directed the defendant to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 12,970/- from 1.1.2004 to 30.6.2004 to the plaintiff. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree a memorandum of appeal has been presented under section 96 of the Code and along with the present application. 3. When this application was taken up for consideration, learned counsel representing the State raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner which is a Cooperative Society would not be covered under Order 44 Rule 1 read with Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code. As an objection was raised we heard the learned counsel for the parties on the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Cooperative Society and from perusal of the audit conducted by the State Administration it is manifest that the petitioner has sustained loss and, therefore, it is entitled under the law to sue as a pauper. It is also canvassed by him that the language or Order 33 Rule 1, CPC is quite wide to cover a Company or the Cooperative Society which is a juridical person. 5. Mr. Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, per contra, propounded that the petitioner, a Cooperative Society, would not be covered within the ambit and purview of Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code, and for that view of the matter under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code, to sue as an indigent person regard being had to the language employed under the said provisions. 6. In this context, it is apposite to refer to Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code which reads as under: "1. Suits may be instituted by indigent person. 6. In this context, it is apposite to refer to Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code which reads as under: "1. Suits may be instituted by indigent person. -- Subject to the following provisions, any suit may be instituted by an indigent person. Explanation I : A person is an indigent person, --(a) if he is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in suit, or (b) where no such fee is prescribed, if he is' not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the subject-matter of the suit. Explanation II : Any property which is acquired by a person after the presentation of his application for permission to sue as an indigent person, and before the decision of the application, shall be taken into account in considering the question whether or not the applicant is an indigent person. Explanation III : Where the plaintiff sues in a representative capacity, the question whether he is an indigent person shall be determined with reference to the means possessed by him in such capacity." 7. Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is relevant for the present purpose is reproduced below: "1. Who may appeal as an indigent person. -- (1) Any person entitled to prefer an appeal, who is unable to pay the fee required for the memorandum of appeal may present an application accompanied by a memorandum of appeal, and may be allowed to appeal as an indigent person, subject, in all matters, including the presentation of such application, to the provisions relating to suits by indigent persons, in so far as those provisions are applicable." 8. The question that emerges for consideration is whether a Cooperative Society can be permitted to present an application for grant of leave to sue as an indigent person. 9. In Perumal Koudan v. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanaseklzara Sanka Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1918 Mad. 362, the Division Bench repelled the contention that the company cannot file a suit in forma pauperis. Their Lordships expressed the opinion as under: "We are unable to accept this contention. 9. In Perumal Koudan v. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanaseklzara Sanka Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1918 Mad. 362, the Division Bench repelled the contention that the company cannot file a suit in forma pauperis. Their Lordships expressed the opinion as under: "We are unable to accept this contention. The word 'person' is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently the definition of the word 'person' as including any Company or Association or Body of individuals whether incorporated or not, in the General Clauses Act (X of 1897) would apply unless there is something repugnant to the subject or context." 10. In Gendalal Cotton Mills v. Basant Kumaribai, AIR 1961 Bombay 1, it has been held that the word 'person' in Explanation to Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code includes natural as well as juristic person. 11. In Chimanlal Blzogiial Panchani v. Clzandanben Manchand Shah. AIR 1965 Gujarat 207, a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held that a trustee can apply for leave to sue in forma pauperis if he has no sufficient trust money. 12. In East Indian Coal Co. Ltd. v. East Indian Coal Co. Ltd. Workers' Union, AIR 1961 Patna 15, it was ruled that the definition of the term person under the General Clauses Act can be applied to the person occurring in the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 22 of the Code and, therefore, a body corporate can be permitted to sue as forma pauperis. 13. In R.P. Oil Mills v. Chunni Devi, AIR 1969 Allahabad 1, the Full Bench has expressed the view as under:"A Limited Company falls within the meaning of the expression 'person' as used in Rule 10, Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure.This would be so even though the Limited Company may have been carrying on business in a name or style other than its own without any attempt to conceal its own corporate name and this fact was known to the party suing." 14. In Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction and others, AIR 2001 SC 2277 , the apex Court affirmed the view of the High Court of Kerala rendered in Union of India and others v. Mis.Khaders International Constructions Ltd. and others, AIR 1993 Kerala 31, and expressed the view that the word 'person' has to be given the meaning in the context in which it has been used and it is a benevolent provision and, therefore, it has to be given the extended meaning and, therefore, a Public Limited Company, which is otherwise entitled to maintain a suit as a legal person, can very well maintain an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code. The word 'pers'on' mentioned in Order 33 includes not only a natural person but other juridical person also. 15. In the case at hand the petitioner is a Cooperative Society. In Daman Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 973 , it has been held that a Registered Society is a body corporate. A body corporate is indubitably a juridical person. 16. I view of the pronouncement of law, as stated hereinabove, we have no iota of doubt that the petitioner, a body corporate, can maintain an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code and thereby an application under Order 44 Rule 1. At this juncture, it is apposite to state that Mr. Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General had fairly stated that at the time of hearing that if the application is held to be maintainable as the accounts are audited and the society has suffered a loss, the State would not have any objection if permission is granted to it to sue as an indigent person. 17. In view of the aforesaid we allow the application of the petitioner and permit it to sue as an indigent person. Accordingly the Registry is directed to register the memorandum of appeal under section 96 of the Code and place the matter before the Appropriate Bench. 18. The Miscellaneous Civil Case is accordingly allowed