GAUHATI HIGH COURT
H.K.Kumar Singh, B.B.Deb, JJ.
Dilip Kumar Modak -Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura -Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 15 of 2001
Decided On : 04-07-2001
Indigent Person - Civil Procedure Code - Order 33 - Rule 2, Rule 3, Rule 8, Rule 15, Rule 15A
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit and a separate application seeking leave to sue as an indigent person. The application was rejected, and the suit was dismissed. The appellant appealed against the dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit should not have been dismissed due to the rejection of the application seeking leave to sue as an indigent person. The court also noted that the appeal was pending for consideration.
Issues: The main issue was the dismissal of the suit due to the rejection of the application seeking leave to sue as an indigent person.
Ratio Decidendi: The rejection of the application seeking leave to sue as an indigent person should not result in the dismissal of the suit. The applicant is at liberty to file a regular suit in the ordinary manner.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order dismissing the suit, considering it to be passed illegally and with material irregularity. The appeal was closed and disposed of.
Heard Mr. AM Lodh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and also heard Mr. UB Saha, the learned Senior Govt Advocate assisted by Mr. TD Majumder, the learned Additional Govt Advocate for the respondents.
2. This appeal has been filed under section 96 of the CPC against the order dated 19.1.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in suit, Money Suit No. 110 of 1999.
3. Upon hearing the learned counsel of both sides it is found that the plaintiff/appellant herein filed a suit which was registered as MS 110 of 1999 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No.2, West Tripura, Agartala. The suit was for a claim of a sum of Rs.2,41,396. Along with this suit the plaintiff also filed a separate application seeking leave of the Court to file the suit as an indigent person under the provision of Order 33 of CPC. This application was registered as Misc (P) No. 123 of 1999. It appears that the said application was taken up for hearing under the provision of Order 33 and ultimately by an order dated 19.1.2001 the application seeking leave of the Court to sue as an indigent person was rejected. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.1.2001 was passed in the main Money Suit No. 110 of 1999 dismissing the suit.
4. Law is clear in this regard. When a suit is to be filed as an indigent person, an application is to be filed seeking leave of the Court to file the suit as an indigent person. Regarding the contents of such application seeking permission, it is prescribed that particulars required in regard to the plaint in the suit etc are to be given in the plaint and verified. Rule 2 is also reproduced below :
"2. Contents of application - 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. It may be mentioned here that if the application does not contain the particulars as prescribed under Rule 2, the application shall be rejected under Rule 5. Rule 3 of Order 33 of CPC prescribes that such an application seeking leave of the Court to sue as an indigent person is to be presented by the person unless he or she is exempted from appearing in the Court, in which case the application may be presented by an authorised agent. The relevant provision is quoted below :
"3. Presentation of application - 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 authorised 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."
6. Therefore, on examination of the applicant or his agent under Rule 4 and when the Court finds no reason to reject the application under "Rule 5 and after giving notice to the opposite party and the Govt Pleader the matter shall be heard following the procedure prescribed under Rule 7. When the application is allowed, it shall be registered and shall be deemed to be a plaint in the suit. The relevant Rule viz Rule 8 is also reproduced below :
"8. Procedure if application admitted-Where the application is granted, it shall be numbered and registered, and shall be deemed the plaint in the suit, and the suit shall proceed in all other respects as a suit instituted in the ordinary manner, a except that the plaintiff shall not be liable to pay any court fee (or fees payable for service of process) in respect of any petition, appointment of a pleader or other proceeding connected with the suit."
7. W
AI
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.