Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAMANUJULU NAIDU, S.S.M.QUADRI
Bommineni Laxmi Devamma - Appellant
Versus
Bommineni Konappa - Respondent
A.A.O. No. 415/84
Decided On : 04-13-89
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. A. Suryanarayana,Mr. Pattabhirama Rao
Held : The object of Order 33 is to help indigent persons and not to punish them for omission or non-disclosure of certain facts Order 33, Rule 5 as it relates to procedure it is only directory and not mandatory The application cannot outright be rejected Sub-Rule (a) of Rule 5 has nothing to do with the merits of the case It deals with the format and Presentation of the application It enables the Court to reject the application at the threshold if it does not conform to the requirements prescribed under Rules 2 and 3 But it does not empower the rejection of the application on the ground that the particulars mentioned in the plaint He later found to be incorrect or for non-disclosure of the properties possessed by the applicant If on the material it is found that the applicant possesses more property than what is stated in the petition and if that property is taken into account, he or she would not satisfy the definition, the application can be rejected under sub-Rule [b] of Rule 5 which says where the applicant is not an indigent person, the application shall be dismissed Therefore, the non-disclosure of properties is immaterial
When once the Court finds that the petitioner is possessed of other properties than what is mentioned in the petition and even taking into account the omitted property, the petitioner is not in a position to pay the Court Fee, the application has to be allowed
1987 (1) ALT 558 approved
1945 (1) MLJ 53, AIR 1970 Mad 269 and AIR 1976 Pat 127 dissented from
AAD Allowed
( 1 ) IN this appeal, we are concerned with the interpretation of sub-rule (a) of R. 5 of O. XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Code.
( 2 ) THE appellant Lakshmidevamma filed a suit for maintenance against her husband. She was not able to pay the Court-fee. She filed an application to sue as an indigent person. The learned Subordinate Judge, Penukonda found that she had a 1 8th share in the house left by her husband (sic) (father) at the time of his death and that she has not mentioned this fact in her application. He also found that even if that 1/8th share is taken into account, she has no means to pay the required Court-fee of Rs. 1906 - payable on the petition. However, he dismissed the application on the sole ground that she was guilty of suppression of the fact that she had 1/8th share in the house as she has not disclosed the same in the petition, Challenging the validity of that order, she filed this appeal.
( 3 ) THIS matter came up for hearing before our learned brother Upendralal Waghray, J. , who thought it fit to refer to a Bench as there is a conflict of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court.
( 4 ) ORDER 33 relates to suits by indigent persons. Rule 5 provides for grounds on which the application can be rejected. Sub-rule (a) of R. 5 which is relevant for our purpose, says that where the application is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rr. 2 and 3, the Court shall reject the application for permission to sue as an indigent person. Rule 2 reads:--"2. Every application for permission to sue as an indigent person shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits : a schedule of any movable or immovable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof, shall be annexed thereto; and it shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings. "
( 5 ) THIS rule contemplates giving of particulars as required in regard to plaints.
( 6 ) ORDER VII, Rule 1 prescribes the particulars to be stated in the plaint, namely:-- (a) the name of the Court in which the suit is brought; (b) the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff; (c) the name, description and place of residence of the defendant, so far as they can be ascertained; (d) where the plaintiff or the defendant is a minor or a person of unsound mind, a statement to that effect; (e) the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose; (f) the facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction; (g) the relief which the plaintiff claims; (h) where the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim, the amount so allowed or relinquished; and (i) a statement of the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and of court-fees, so far as the case admits.
( 7 ) THESE are the pleadings required to be stated in the plaint and O. 33, R. 2 contemplates that these pleadings are to be stated in the application for permission to sue as an indigent person. Order 33, Rule 3 is as follows:--"3. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the application shall be presented to the Court by the applicant in person, unless he is exempted from appearing in Court, in which case the application may be presented by an authorized agent who can answer all material questions relating to the application, and who may be examined in the same manner as the party represented by him might have been examined had such party attended in person : Provided that, where there are more plaintiffs than one, it shall be sufficient if the application is presented by one of the plaintiffs. "
( 8 ) THIS Rule deals with the presentation of the application and states that it should be presented by the applicant or by an authorised agent if the applicant is exempted from appearing in the Court and if there are more plaintiffs than one, it can be presented by one of the plaintiffs. Rules 2 and 3 of 0. 33 deal with the pro
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.