Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Sushil Thomas Abraham – Appellant
Vs.
M/s Skyline Build. Through Its Partner & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19516 of 2014]
Decided On : 07-01-2019
(b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLIV Rule 3(2) – Applicant who was declined status of an indigent person by trial court in the suit – Entitled to prosecute appeal as an indigent person, if becoming an indigent person since the decree – In such case also, an inquiry is required to be held to decide his status – High Court dismissing application of appellant without holding an enquiry – Not permissible. (Para 33, 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a civil suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs.74,66,107/- under Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC seeking permission to institute the suit as an indigent person under Order 44 Rule 1.
This prayer was rejected by the trial court as well as the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The reasoning of the High Court is not in conformity with the Order 33 read with Order 44 and hence cannot be upheld.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 10.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CMC No.78/2011 in RFA No..../2011 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the CMC petition filed by the appellant herein.
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass as would be clear from their narration infra so also the controversy which is involved in this appeal is a short one.
4. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
5. The appellant filed a civil suit against the respondents in the Court of 1st Additional Sub-Judge, Thiruvananthapuram being OP (indigent) No. 38/96 for recovery of Rs.74,66,107/-. This suit was filed under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). The appellant alleged that he is unable to pay ad valorem court fees of Rs.3,96,610/- which was payable by him on the claim made in the suit and therefore he be granted permission to institute the suit as an indigent person.
6. The respondents (defendants) contested the claim by filing written statement and denied the appellant's claim including his prayer to declare him as an "indigent person".
7. According to the respondents, the appellant was in a position to pay the ad valorem court fees of Rs.3,96,610/- on the plaint because he had sufficient means to pay the ad valorem court fees. The respondents contended that the appellant was, therefore, not entitled to claim the status of an "indigent person" within the meaning of Order 33 Rule 1 Explanation I (a) & (b) of the Code for filing a suit under Order 33 of the Code.
8. The Trial Court by order dated 19.08.1998 rejected the prayer made by the appellant (plaintiff) for filing a suit as an "indigent person" under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code. In other words, the Trial Court held that the appellant failed to make out a case that he is an "indigent person" and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to file a suit as an "indigent person" under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code.
9. The plaintiff (appellant herein) felt aggrieved and filed appeal against the aforementioned order of the Trial Court in the High Court being CMA No.248 of 1998. By order dated 22.02.2000, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Trial Court. The High Court granted the plaintiff one month time to pay the requisite ad valorem court fees on the plaint.
10. The plaintiff then converted his suit in the Original Suit (OS No.227/2000). He also filed another Civil Suit (OS No.921/95) seeking therein the declaration and injunction against the defendants in relation to the subject matter of the first suit. Both the suits were clubbed together for trial. By judgment and decree dated 12.04.2011, the Trial Court dismissed the suits.
11. The plaintiff (appellant) felt aggrieved and filed an application accompanied by the memorandum of appeal before the High Court of Kerala under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code. The appellant alleged in the application that his financial condition is further deteriorated from what it was earlier when he had filed a civil suit and, therefore, he is unable to pay the ad valorem court fees on the memorandum of appeal.
12. The plaintiff (appellant), therefore, prayed that he be allowed to file the first appeal against the decree of the trial court as an "indigent person" under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code without payment of ad valorem court fees payable on the memorandum of appeal.
13. By impugned order, the High Court rejected the application. The High Court in substance held that in the light of the earlier rejection of the appellant's (plaintiffs) prayer to file a suit as an "indigent person" under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code by the Trial Court and the same having been upheld by the High Court in the appeal, the plaintiff is not entitled to file an application/appeal under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
