JUDGMENT Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.: (Oral) - This is plaintiff’s revision petition against the order passed by the lower Appellate Court dismissing the application to file an appeal as a pauper under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC on the ground that the same has not been presented in person but has been presented through a most leading advocate of the area. The plaintiff- petitioner had been permitted to sue as a pauper by the trial Court in a suit filed by him for compensation on account of imputation of his left arm on January 25, 2001 when his elbow came in contact with a high voltage electricity wire carrying current of 440 volts which was waiving in the air near the balcony of his residential house. The suit was dismissed on merits. 2. Plaintiff- petitioner filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court alongwith an application under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC. Vide impugned order the lower Appellate Court had rejected the said application solely on the ground that the application had not been filed in person by the petitioner but had been filed through a counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that filing of an appeal through counsel is a curable defect and the plaintiff could be allowed to present the same again after removing the defect. In support of his contention, counsel has relied upon Mrs. Premi Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2006 Punjab 151. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this petition contending that neither the petition has been filed in a manner prescribed under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC read with Order 33 Rule 3 CPC nor the petitioner has been able to establish that he is an indigent person. It has been argued by counsel for the respondents that the provisions of Order 33 Rule 3 CPC which are applicable to in an appeal under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC are mandatory in nature and that the defect cannot be cured. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and carefully considered the facts and circumstances and the relevant provisions of law. The presentation of an application in person for suing as an indigent person is not the absolute requirement of law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and carefully considered the facts and circumstances and the relevant provisions of law. The presentation of an application in person for suing as an indigent person is not the absolute requirement of law. Order 33 Rule 3 CPC enables a Court to permit the presentation of an application under Order 33 Rule 3 CPC through an authorized agent by exempting the personal appearance of the applicant. Following the ratio of the judgment in Premi Devi’s case (supra), it is observed that if an appeal is not presented in person by the appellant alongwith an application for permission to be filed as a pauper, the defect is curable and can be allowed to be cured by returning the appeal to be presented by removing the defect, in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff who has lost his one arm and is a minor should be permitted to avail the legal remedy available to him by getting the adjudication of his appeal on merits after an opportunity to file appeal against the judgment and decree passed against him under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC. 7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated June 15, 2011 is hereby set aside. The appeal filed through counsel by the petitioner is ordered to be returned to him for presentation in accordance with law within a period of 15 days after the return expecting that the same would be decided in accordance with law. ---------0.B.S.0------------