Once a plaintiff ceases to be an indigent person, he is obligated to pay the court fee due on the plaints, as provided under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Balasubramanyan, J.

These revisions are by the same plaintiff in four suits against four dailies in the State for recovery of damages for defamation. The plaintiff filed the four suits O.S.Nos.174 of 1989 to 177 of 1989 with petitions for permission to sue as an indigent person. After the enquiry into the indecency of the plaintiff, he was permitted to sue as an indigent person. The suits were numbered and proceeded with. When they were ultimately posted applications were made by the defendants invoking O. XXXIIIR. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure submitting that the plaintiff has then such means that he ought not to continue to sue as an indigent person. This was because, the plaintiff who was a Police Officer and who was under suspension earlier had later been reinstated and had retired from service and had come by the retirement benefits and the arrears of salary due to him. Though the amounts were received in the year 1992 the applications for dispaupering the plaintiff were made only in the year 1994. The plaintiff had received a sum of Rs. 2,80,297/- and the court fee payable in all the four suits together was only Rs. 1,14,000/ -. The plaintiff resisted the applications by pointing out that the amounts referred to by the defendants were amounts that were liable to be excluded from computation since the amounts that were received by him were exempted from attachment in execution of a decree as provided in S.60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also pleaded that he had to spend the said amounts in connection with the education of his children and the marriage of his daughter and therefore, in any view, he continued to be an indigent person.

2. Though applications were made in all the four suits by the defendants to dispauper the plaintiff, the trial court originally only lookup the application in O.S.175 pf 1989 and held therein that the plaintiff had ceased to be an indigent person and hence he could not continue the suit as an indigent person. The plaintiff filed C.R.P. 2634 of 1994 before this court challenging that order. By order dated 24.10.1996, this court set aside that order and dismissed the application made by the defendants to dispauper the plaintiff. Subsequently a review of that decision was sought for by the first defendant by filing R.P. 395 of 1996. This court by order dated 9.1.1997 reviewed its earlier order and modified the same. While this court maintained the setting aside of the order of the court below in the application to dispauper the plaintiff, this court remanded that application for a decision along with the applications in the three other connected suits and for a fresh disposal. Thereafter, the court below took up the applications and by the common order impugned in these revisions held that by the receipt of the amounts on retirement, the plaintiff has come by means and that he ought not to continue to sue as an indigent person. Thus, the applications filed by the defendants in the four suits were allowed and the trial court granted the plaintiff a time of one month for the payment of court fee in all the four suits. These orders are challenged in these revisions by the plaintiff.

3. Mr. P.N. Krishnankutty Achan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff contended that the court below was in error in holding that the plaintiff had come by sufficient means so as to disqualify him to continue to sue as an indigent person. He further contended that even if the plaintiff was to be dispaupered in terms of O. XXXIII R.9 of the Code, the court could not call upon the plaintiff to pay the court fee due within the time fixed as it has done or to dismiss or reject the plaint for non-payment of court fee. The court was bound in the light of the specific provisions contained in O. XXXIII R.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure after its amendment in the year 1976, the Court was bound to proceed with the trial of the suit notwithstanding its finding that the plaintiff has ceased to be an