Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
G.Giri, S/o.Gangadharan – Appellant
Versus
G.Geetha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This regular first appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’ for short], by the plaintiff in O.S. No.922 of 2011 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam, assailing rejection of plaint for non-payment of balance court fee and the order dated 27.08.2014 in I.A. No.1982 of 2013 in the above suit, whereby the petition filed by the appellant herein under Order XXXIII Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, was dismissed. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the above suit.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court.
3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as “plaintiff” and “defendant” with reference to their status before the trial court.
4. In this matter, the suit has been filed for realization of an amount of Rs.11,63,600/- with interest from the defendant. At the time of filing the suit, the plaintiff had remitted Rs.11,149/- being 1/10 of the court fee payable. Then, he was directed to pay the balance court fee to the tune
Suppression of assets by a plaintiff seeking to sue as an indigent person indicates capacity to pay court fees, justifying rejection of the application.
A litigant seeking to sue as an indigent person must disclose all assets; non-disclosure warrants dismissal of the application to prevent fraudulent claims.
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.
Suit by indigent person – Application for permission to sue as an indigent person has to be rejected and could not be allowed if allegations in plaint could not show any cause of action.
Practice and Procedure – Indigent person - Where the provisions in Order XXXIII of Code were interpreted to hold that suppression of real facts would entail in disallowing the prayer of the applicant....
Indigent status does not require total destitution; sufficient means must be assessed based on capacity to raise funds.
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....
The requirement for a property schedule in indigent applications is procedural and should not preclude access to justice if no bad faith is shown.
The court clarified that to qualify as an indigent person under Order 33 CPC, actual financial capacity must be assessed, not merely hypothetical earning potential.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
