SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

The plaintiff in O.S.320/2003 of the Sub Court, Kottayam has preferred the above appeal challenging an order dated 20.3.2009 passed by the Sub Court dismissing I.A.3441/2003. The petition was filed seeking permission of the Court to institute the suit as an indigent person. The Court has dismissed the petition finding that the appellant/petitioner was possessed of sufficient means to pay the requisite court fee. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

2. The appellant had filed the suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.7,67,625/- with future interest from the respondents/defendants. According to the appellant, the defendants had borrowed an amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs from her and had executed a demand promissory note for the said amount in her favour, on 16.3.2003. Thereafter, the defendants paid the interest without default till July 2003. However, the principal amount was not paid. Therefore, the appellant demanded payment of the said amount. Thereupon the defendants issued a cheque dated 20.7.2003 to her. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment the same was returned dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the bank account. Though the appellant demanded payment of the cheque amount as per letter dated 1.8.2003, the amount was not paid. Therefore, she filed the suit for recovery of the amount borrowed, from the defendants.

3. At the time of institution of the suit the appellant had remitted the 1/3rd court fee that was payable on the suit. According to her, the total court fee payable is Rs.75,163/-. After giving credit for the 1/3rd court fee already paid, the balance court fee payable by the appellant is Rs.67,646/-.

4. It is the case of the appellant that she is not in a position to raise the balance court fee that is payable in the suit. She is a widow who is residing with her mother. She possesses property having an extent of 23 cents in Kunnamthanam Village. According to her, there is no income from the said property. She is not possessed of any other property of her own. She is employed on contract basis as an accountant in Mar Xavarious Memorial Training College, Chenganoor and she is getting a monthly remuneration of Rs.4,000/-. She has no other income. She also has to look after her family. Therefore, she has no means to pay the balance court fee and hence, sought permission to file the suit as an indigent person.

5. The petition was contested by the defendants. The first respondent/1st defendant filed counter affidavit disputing the averments of the appellant/plaintiff. According to the first respondent, the suit itself was based on negotiable instruments alleged to have been issued towards repayment of an amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs. The averments in the plaint itself showed that the appellant was a person who had the capacity to raise such a huge amount as Rs.7.5 lakhs at short notice. She was a financially sound person and had the capacity to pay the court fee. But, since the appellant was not confident that she would be able to succeed in the suit as it was based on forged documents, she has filed the petition to institute the suit as an indigent person. According to the first respondent, the contention of the appellant that she had no source of income to raise the requisite amount for paying the balance court fee in the suit was false. Therefore, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. The court below enquired into the allegations and counter allegations. Both parties adduced evidence, both oral and documentary in support of their contentions. On the side of the appellant/petitioner P.Ws 1 and 2 are examined as witnesses and Exts. A1 to A6 documents marked. C.P.W.1 is examined as a witness and Exts. B1 to B3 documents marked on the side of the respondents. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner had the capacity to raise the necessary amounts for payment of the court fee in