Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents.

2. The appeal is against an order passed by the Ist Additional Sub Judge, Thrissur on I.A No.5118 of 2015 in O.S No.17 of 2015, challenging maintainability of the original petition (indigent) filed by the appellant herein. According to the trial court, the original petition is barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C'), even though the trial court has wrongly mentioned the provision as Order 23 Rule 4 C.P.C in the impugned order.

3. Facts, relevant, are stated in brief :

The appellant (plaintiff) approached the court below to set aside a registered document executed by him in favour of the first defendant. Initially, he filed an original petition as an indigent person (POP No.16 of 2007) stating the grounds, on which he attacked the document. Later, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 13-04-2007. It is important to note that the appellant did not take any permission from the court for withdrawal of the original proceedings in POP No.16 of 2007. In fact, he, on noticing some formal defects, endorsed that the petition is not pressed.

4. Subsequently, the appellant preferred POP No.19 of 2007. Parties in both the actions are the same. Subject matter and reliefs claimed are also the same. It is contended by the respondents/defendants that the second petition is barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4) C.P.C and also the original petition has to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C since it is evident from the statement in the proceedings itself that it is barred by law.

5. The court below, after examination of the rival contentions, arrived at a conclusion that the original petition POP No.16 of 2007 was akin to a suit and therefore not pressing the proceedings would amount to abandonment of a suit inviting the wrath of Order 23 Rule 1(4) C.P.C. For the same reason, the court below entered a finding that the second proceedings on the same subject matter is liable to be rejected as if it is a plaint by invoking Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant stoutly argued that the court below committed a grave error in dismissing the original petition. First of all, it is contended that an original petition filed by an indigent person cannot be treated as a suit. According to him, the question that is to be resolved at the initial stage is only about indigency of the petitioner. This submission is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. It is a fundamental principle that for all practical purposes an original petition filed by an indigent person, taking shelter under the provisions of Order 33 C.P.C, has to be regarded as a plaint in all respects. Reasons are many for this proposition. Firstly, if a petitioner is allowed to institute and prosecute an action as an indigent person, the original petition will be converted into a suit and the liability for payment of court fee will depend on the result of the case as provided in Order 33 C.P.C. It can also be seen that institution of such a suit will relate back to the date of filing of the original petition. Secondly, even if the petitioner is found not to be an indigent person, the court cannot straight away dismiss the action, but shall allow him an opportunity to pay court fee and prosecute the proceedings as an ordinary original suit. In that event also, date of institution of the suit is the date of institution of the original petition. Thirdly, the original petition should satisfy all the requirements of pleadings prescribed under Orders 6 and 7 and also the forms set out in the Appendix to C.P.C since the same will be later converted as a regular suit. Fourthly, on allowing an indigent person to continue with the suit, the court is bound to follow the procedure prescribed in the C.P.C for trial of a regular suit. Viewing from any angle, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that inst