The court emphasized the necessity of producing adequate evidence to substantiate claims in civil suits, particularly regarding financial expenditures and the criteria for indigent status in court fee payments.

JUDGMENT :

K. Natarajan, J.

OP(C) No.286/2023 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub Judge, Chengannur in IA No.10/2022 in OS No.20/2020 dated 21.01.2023 for having dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 10 A (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. OP (C) No.39/2024 filed by the petitioner/2^nd defendant as against the order passed by the very same Court on IA No.7/2021 in the same Suit, i.e., O.S.No.20/2020, for allowing the plaintiff to pay the court fee in subsequent stage, by allowing the application under Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC in part, vide order dated23.11.2021.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel of the respondents.

4. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff in OS No.20/2020, he has filed the suit against the defendants for realization of money said to be constructed building by purchasing the site on the request of the 1^st respondent who is said to be the brother- in - law of the plaintiff. Accordingly, said to be spent Rs.24 Lakhs more than the amount paid by the defendant. Hence, he has filed the Suit. The defendants appeared and filed written statement by defending the same. The defendants filed another suit against the plaintiff, i.e., OS No.15/2020 alleging that he has paid the amount to the plaintiff and he has misappropriated the same and he has purchased the property in his name. Therefore, prayed for realisation of Rs.20,78,567/-. Subsequently, both the cases are clubbed together and the petitioner/plaintiff is said to be lead the evidence. After completion of the evidence, the present application under Order XXVI Rule 10 A (1) of CPC filed for appointing the commissioner, for measuring the construction of the building, and value the construction of the building for the purpose of proving his case. The same was objected by the respondents which came to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously contended that though the defendants paid the amount of Rs.63 Lakhs plus amount, but the plaintiff has purchased the site and put up the construction and he has spent more than Rs.24,34,000/- over and above the amount paid by the defendant. Though he has produced some documents, but unable to give full details. Therefore, it is necessary for the petitioner/plaintiff to verify the cost of the constructions and value the building for the purpose of proving his case. Therefore, rejecting the application is not correct and it is nothing but collection of evidence to the defendants as well as filing the Court fee.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent seriously objected to the petition, mainly on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiff was already over and he had not produced a single document to prove his case, on the other hand he had misappropriated the amount. The defendant already filed a Suit and he has to lead evidence, he has produced all the documents before the court. Therefore, if the application is allowed, it is nothing but collection of the evidence by one of the plaintiffs which cannot be allowed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. In respect of another petition that is OP (C) No.39/24 filed by the 2^nd defendant by challenging the order passed by the same court in IA under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC filed by the very plaintiff to continue the Suit or file the suit as indigent person on the ground he has no money for payment of court fee Rs.2,13,120/- and he is able to pay only 10% he wants to ben