Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
G. Giri S/o Gangadharan - Appellant
Versus
G. Geetha D/o Gangadharan – Respondent
R.F.A. No. 18 of 2015
Decided On : 10-02-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves an appeal against the rejection of a plaint due to non-payment of court fee and the dismissal of an application to sue as an indigent person (!) (!) .
The appellant filed a suit for a substantial amount and initially paid a fraction of the court fee, seeking permission to pay the balance later on the grounds of indigence (!) .
The trial court found that the appellant had suppressed material facts regarding ownership of assets, including land and property worth Rs.1 Crore, and concluded that the appellant was capable of paying the required court fee (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that a litigant must disclose all assets to establish indigence; suppression of assets is considered fraudulent and justifies rejection of the application to sue as an indigent person (!) .
The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, confirming that the appellant's failure to disclose all assets and the suppression of material facts indicated capacity to pay the court fee. Therefore, the rejection of the plaint was justified (!) .
However, to ensure justice, the appellate court granted a two-week period for the appellant to pay the remaining court fee. If paid within this timeframe, the suit would be revived; otherwise, the order would become final (!) .
The appellate court dismissed the appeal and all pending interlocutory applications, directing the registry to send the judgment to the trial court for further action (!) (!) .
The legal principles highlight that non-disclosure or suppression of assets during an application to sue as an indigent person can lead to rejection of the application, as such conduct indicates the applicant's capacity to pay the court fee (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rejection of plaint due to court fee issues (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding plaintiff's financial capacity (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's findings on material suppression (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 21) |
| 4. criteria for being an indigent person under cpc (Para 12 , 20) |
| 5. final orders and implications of court fee payment (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
1. 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 of Rs.1,00,339/-. On such direction, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.1982/2013, stating that he had no means to pay the balance court fee. Therefore, he sought permission to sue as an indigent person without paying the balance court fee. According to the plaintiff, he has no regular employment and income to pay the balance court fee.
5. This plea was opposed by the defendant, contending that the plaintiff is the owner of an extent of 93 cents of land and a hotel complex and he has been running real estate business. Therefore, the plaintiff has the capacity to pay the balance court fee.
6. In support of the contentions raised in the petition, the plaintiff got examined as PW1. Taking into account the evidence given by PW1, the trial court found that the plaintiff suppressed material aspects regarding ownership of 4.5 cent of land and also 76 cent of land and a building worth Rs.1 Crore constructed by the plaintiff, in the petition, though the said facts were admitted by the plaintiff during his examination as PW1. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the petition finding suppression of material aspects and also holding that the plaintiff, in the said circumstances, is capable of paying Rs.1,00,339/- as court fee.
7. After the dismissal of the petition on 27.08.2014, when the plaintiff was directed to pay the balance court fee again, instead of paying the balance court fee, he had filed I.A. No.1713/2014 to keep the proceedings in the suit in abeyance, so as to enable the plaintiff to challenge the order in I.A. No.1982/2013 before this Court. But, the trial court dismissed the same and rejected the plaint, with cost of the otherside, as per the judgment dated 30.09.2014.
8. Assailing the order and judgment passed by the trial court, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that, as per the ratio of the decision of this Court in Basil Thomas v. Joseph ,2013 (2) KLJ 644, when it is shown that the litigant is unable to pay the due court fee, the provisions of Order 33 would apply and there is no rigid formula, which confines the relief under Order 33 to only persons, who are essentially striving on the poverty line. In paragraph No.3 of the Basil Thomas’s case (supra)this Court held as under:
“3. Fundamentally, the provisions in Order33 are to be utilised, when it is shown that a litigant is unable to pay the due court fee. Those provisions apply also to payment of balance court
A litigant seeking to sue as an indigent person must disclose all assets; non-disclosure warrants dismissal of the application to prevent fraudulent claims.
Suppression of assets by a plaintiff seeking to sue as an indigent person indicates capacity to pay court fees, justifying rejection of the application.
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....
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.
Indigent status does not require total destitution; sufficient means must be assessed based on capacity to raise funds.
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
