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 application submission.

JUDGMENT :

G. GIRISH, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.69 of 2015 of the First Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this appeal against the order dated 22.12.2023 of the said court, rejecting I.A.No.1315 of 2017 filed under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to sue as an indigent person.

2. The suit was originally filed before the Vacation Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 08.05.2015 for realisation of an amount of Rs.4.3 Crores from the respondent. Though the second relief prayed for in the said suit was to permit the plaintiff (appellant herein) to sue as an indigent person, there was no petition submitted by the plaintiff in ‘forma pauperis’ as required under Order XXXIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Vacation Court, Thiruvananthapuram admitted the above suit to files without any order under Order XXXIII Rule 7(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and made it over to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The plaintiff had neither remitted 1/10 court fee as required under Section 4 A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, and nor undergone the enquiry as required under Rule 4 and Rule 7 of Order XXXIII Code of Civil Procedure. After the elapse of about two years, the appellant filed I.A.No.1315 of 2017, seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. In the above application, the learned First Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram earlier passed an order on 06.02.2023, permitting the appellant to proceed with the suit as an indigent person. The above order did not contain any indication about the enquiry conducted under Rule 4 and Rule 7 of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent challenged the above order before this Court by filing O.P(C)No.1308 of 2023. As per the judgment dated 12.10.2023, this Court allowed the above original petition and set aside the order of the learned Additional Sub Judge, with a consequential direction to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram to reconsider I.A.No.1315 of 2017, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides, and to dispose of the said application, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. Thereafter, the learned First Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram went on with the necessary enquiry, in which the appellant was examined as PW1. The appellant did not adduce any documentary evidence. From the part of the respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exts.B1 series to B3 series were marked as documents. As per the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 in I.A.No.1315 of 2017, the learned First Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram declined permission to the appellant to sue as an indigent person, and rejected the application under Order XXXIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is the above order which is under challenge in this appeal.

3. The point to be decided is whether there are sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the First Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, declining permission to the appellant to sue as an indigent person.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Adv.Sri.K.Ramakumar, who appeared for the appellant under instructions from Adv.Mr.T.Ramprasad Unni, and also Adv.Sri.Govind Padmanabhan, who appeared for the respondent.

5. The Trial Court declined permission to the appellant to sue as an indigent person for three reasons. Firstly, the learned Additional Sub Judge found that the appellant had instituted the suit in violation of Order XXXIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which required the applicant to incorporate a schedule of any movable or immovable property belonging to h