The requirement for a property schedule in indigent applications is procedural and should not preclude access to justice if no bad faith is shown.

JUDGMENT :

(SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.)

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 08.01.2025 in I.A.No.193 of 2019 in IOP No.1 of 2019 of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Koyilandy. Appellant was the applicant in the said I.A. and petitioner in the IOP.

2. I.A.No.193 of 2019 was filed by the appellant invoking Order 33 Rule 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. The said application was rejected by the Sub Court vide the impugned order holding that the same had not been framed as per the mandates of Order 33 Rule 2. The learned Sub Judge held that since the application did not contain the schedule of movable and immovable property belonging to the appellant as mandated in law, the same is fit to be rejected. The said order of the Sub Court is challenged in this FAO.

3. Heard Sri.B.Krishna Mani, Advocate, appearing for the appellant. Since the relief sought in the FAO does not impact the respondents, it is deemed not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order of the Sub Court rejecting the indigent application is illegal and unsustainable. In the application seeking to file the O.S. as an indigent, the appellant had clearly stated that he has no assets other than his wearing apparel, a watch and spectacles. The total value of the same had also been stated therein as Rs.650/-. He had no other movable and immovable property and no assets whatsoever had also been specifically averred. The learned counsel also submitted that though in I.A.No.193 of 2019 filed by the appellant, he had not incorporated a schedule stating the movable and immovable property belonging to the appellant/ applicant, such a schedule stating the said details had been incorporated in IOP No.1 of 2019 filed by the appellant. It is contended that the said schedule would, in effect, satisfy the mandate of Order 33 Rule 2. The learned counsel submits that since it was patently evident that, except for the wearing apparel of the appellant, his glasses and a watch, the appellant owns no other property, either movable or immovable, to be scheduled in a petition, the court below ought to have taken note of the same and should not have insisted on annexing any separate schedule regarding the same in the petition. The Sub Court ought to have read the averments in the I.A. and the IOP ought to have been read as a whole and the Sub Court ought not to have rejected the indigent application in its entirety as was done in the impugned order. There is no allegation that the appellant had suppressed any aspects regarding his assets and hence non-incorporation of a schedule in the I.A. should not have been seen as grave enough to merit a rejection. The learned counsel proceeded to substantiate the contentions put forth by placing reliance on the dictum laid down in Bommineni Laxmi Devamma v. Bommineni Konappa , [1990 KHC 1596] ; Subedar Anoop Chand v. Bhonrilal [ AIR 1955 Raj. 78]; Ramdas Sahu v. Ram Chandra Sahu and others [AIR 1957 Pat. 562]; State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi and others [1979 KHC 157]; A.A.Haja Muniuddian v. Indian Railways [1992 KHC 959]. The learned counsel also highlighted the procedural nature of some of the provisions of the CPC and termed Order 33 Rule 3 as falling in the said category by pointing to the dictum laid down in R.V.Dev @ R.Vasudevan Nair