IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Ganga Rao, T. Mallikarjuna Rao, JJ.
Ganisetti Venkata Rajendra Prasad - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.18773 of 2022
Decided On : 18-11-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLIV - Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 - Section 12, 13, 21(1) - Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 - Section 68 - Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 - Who may appeal as an indigent person - Criteria for giving legal services- Entitlement of legal services -Whether Mandal/District/State Legal Services Authority is vested with power to grant exemption from payment of court fees, for a litigant to seek remedies before a Civil Court –Held, Court, having carefully considered facts and circumstances and submission of learned counsel and perused material on record, found that petitioner already filed suit in for dissolution of partnership firm and rendition of accounts in pro forma pauperis and same is dismissed – Court are not inclined to relegate matter to District Legal Services Authority – respondent since no prima facie case is manifest and petitioner is not entitled for any legal aid and with that certificate he could not file suit before jurisdictional court and same cannot be entertained – Court have already gone through entire record and contentions and found that suit for damages is only a frivolous and vexatious litigation before Courts - Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
(M. Ganga Rao, J.)
1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus to the 2nd respondent Chairman cum II Additional District Judge, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Amalapuram to grant permission to the petitioner to sue as indigent person by exempting the Court fee for filing suit for damages, by setting aside the order passed in LCA.No.2 of 2022 by the 2nd respondent against the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the rules made thereunder.
2. The petitioner Sri Ganisetti Venkata Rajendra Prasad filed this writ petition by way of Party in Person, who is enrolled as an Advocate and dealing with his own cases. He states that he was a partner of ‘Prasad Rice Mill’ in Ganti Pedapudi village, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, which is within the jurisdiction of II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram. He was cheated by the other partners by forging his signatures showing that he was retired from the firm in the year 1992 and all his investment in the firm was withdrawn by them showing false withdrawals from the account in the firm. He filed a suit in O.P.No.47 of 1994 for dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts of the firm before the Subordinate Court Judge, Razole and he was permitted to sue as indigent person and the said suit was registered and transferred to Senior Civil Judge Court, Kothapeta and numbered as O.S.No.40 of 2001 and the said suit was dismissed. He preferred appeal in A.S.No.701 of 2011 before this Court against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.40 of 2001 and the same is pending before this Court. While things stood thus, he came to know that other partners also forged his signatures and filed Form-V before the Registrar of Firms stating that he retired from the firm and because of forgery of signatures, he is being deprived from enjoying his share in the firm for 30 years. He is leading sorrowful life and depending on others for his maintenance. Even though he is suffering with kidney problem, he is not taking any treatment and is suffering from Gouty rheumatism by taking steroids. He got his Law degree at the age of 52 years with limited his practice to look after his own cases and he is having little practice. His partners in the Rice Mill are getting Rs.10 lakhs per year and they are distributing the same. Now, he filed suit for damages for depriving him his right of enjoying his share in the rice mill properties and loss of durable life because of the cheating and forgery committed by the other partners.
3. The petitioner having decided to file suit for damages against the other partners of firm ‘Prasad Rice Mill’ as indigent person, approached the Chairman cum II Additional District Judge, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Amalapuram by filing application for grant of exemption of payment of Court Fees and the same was rejected vide LAC.No.2 of 2022 dated 08.03.2022 referring to the decisions of this Court in Navya Infracon Projects Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others and Kopparthi Krishna Murthy Vs. District Legal Services Authority, West Godavari, Eluru. The authority also referred to Circular bearing Roc.No.5772/APSLSA/LSW/2010 dated 21.8.210 and G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 19.6.2007 and states that the rejection of grant of exemption is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the rules made thereunder.
4. It is apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of Legal Services Authority Act which entitles a person providing legal aid. The provisions of Section 12 (h) of the Legal Services Authority Act reads thus:
Section 13
The main legal point established in the judgment is that legal aid service, including exemption from court fee, must be strictly assessed and can be reviewed at any time, especially if obtained throu....
An indigent appellant is not liable for court fees unless permission to proceed as an indigent is granted by the court after a proper inquiry.
Point of Court : When there is a violation of principles of natural justice and mandatory statutory mechanisms, aggrieved parties may invoke writ jurisdiction to cure the manifest errors of law in im....
A petitioner seeking to sue as an indigent person under Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. bears the burden of proof to establish indigency through evidence; mere assertions are insufficient, and the court must ....
A plaintiff who has paid partial court fees at the time of institution may subsequently seek permission to prosecute as an indigent person if they experience genuine financial incapacity. Eligibility....
Appeal as indigent person – A person who is entitled to receive compensation by way of claim before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can be said to have given up its status as an ‘indigent person’, by ....
The main legal point established is that the status of an indigent person, once recognized by the court, cannot be changed without proper challenge or variation in the order.
Adherence to procedural requirements under Order XXXIII of the Code is essential for a plaintiff to be permitted to sue as an indigent person, including full disclosure of property and proper applica....
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.