D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) SINCE both the appeals arise out of O. P. No. 138 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) THE appellant and the respondents in both the appeals are the plaintiff and defendants in O. P. No. 138 of 2003 before the Court below.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants , respectively.

( 5 ) C. M. A. No. 4791 of 2004 is directed against the order, dated 23-11-2004, passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad, in O. P. No. 138 of 2003. By that order, the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to declare it as an indigent person and permit it to file the suit in forma pauperis , and granted time to the petitioner till 10-12-2004 for payment of court-fee for registering the suit.

( 6 ) SINCE the plaintiff did not comply with the order, dated 23-11-2004, with regard to payment of court-fee, the Court below passed the following judgment on 22-12-2004 in o. P. No. 138 of 2003 (in verbatim):"petitioner called absent. The counsel representing the petitioner requests for time. Since the matter is posted as last chance for payment of court fee and in spite of granting time from 10-12-2004 the petitioner has not paid the court fee nor got any order from the High Court. Since the petitioner made oral request for time to get the order from the High court is not accepted. Hence, the petition is rejected. "

( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, dated 22-12-2004. plaintiff filed c. C. C. A. (SR) No. 2886 of 2005.

( 8 ) THE plaintiff sought to file the suit against the defendants in forma pauperis, for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property basing its claim on the registered sale deeds which disclose that the plaint schedule land was purchased by it for valid consideration and the defendants, who claim to be the tenants of the land in question, have been in possession of the same. It appears that earlier a suit O. S. No. 214 of 1982 had been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession, which was decreed, and the matter went upto to the supreme Court and eventually, the present suit came to be filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

( 9 ) AS stated supra, C. M. A. No. 4791 of 2004 is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order, dated 23-11 -2004, passed by the Court below in O. P. No. 138 of 2003 rejecting permission sought for by it under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to file the suit in forma pauperis, whereas C. C. C. A. (SR) no. 2886 of 2005 is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment of the Court below, dated 22-12-2004, dismissing the petition in o. P. No. 138 of 2003.

( 10 ) IT is the contention of Mr. P. R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, that in suits filed in forma pauperis by or on behalf of institutions , for the purpose of deciding whetherthe plaintiff has got sufficient means to pay the court-fee or not on the plaint, the means/capacity of the institution alone shall have to be taken into consideration and the means of the individuals forming such institution/society shall not be taken into consideration. In effect, his submission is that for the purpose of payment of court fee, the capacity of the institution alone has to be considered but not the capacity of the individuals forming part of such institution. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in k. A. D. Ashramam v. Somasundaramma .

( 11 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants that the Court below has given cogent and convincing reasons in passing the impugned order and hence the same does not call for any interfer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document