Point of Court : When there is a violation of principles of natural justice and mandatory statutory mechanisms, aggrieved parties may invoke writ jurisdiction to cure the manifest errors of law in impugned order so assailed.

ORDER :

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-defendant No.2, assailing the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 25/2022 (Dr. Gurdeep Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) whereby, the application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed.

2. Vide order dated 14.09.2022, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 06.07.2022. Thereafter, application(s) were filed for the vacation of the said stay order as well as for the early hearing and disposal of the matter. Accordingly, as per order dated 15.02.2023, the respondent-plaintiff, who is appearing in person, was extended the proposal for availing legal aid/assistance. However, he turned down the said proposal and submitted that he is well conversed with the law to argue the matter by himself.

3. In light of the above-stated background and after having obtained the consent of both the sides, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

4. Brief facts of the case, as borne out from the instant petition, reveal that the respondent-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.25/2022 against the defendant-petitioner, seeking compensatory damages to the tune of Rs. 30,75,02,642/-. Furthermore, the respondent plaintiff filed an application in the said suit under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for availing an exemption from the payment of court fee, citing indigency and his inability to pay. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 06.07.2022, the learned court below allowed the said application filed under Order 33 Rule 1, against which the petitioner-defendant has filed the instant writ petition.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that the impugned order is bad-in-law, as the learned court below has failed to acknowledge and comply with the mandatory procedure as prescribed under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’). In this regard, it was submitted that Order 33 of the CPC prescribes the procedure for the institution of a suit by an indigent person. However, the learned trial court, while passing the impugned order, bypassed the mandatory requirements of Order 33 insofar as no due inquiry was conducted by a competent person regarding the grounds for rejection of a plaint mentioned under Rule 5 of Order 33 of the CPC. Moreover, the learned trial court below even failed to undertake the procedure set out under Rule 6, as no notice was served upon the petitioner as well as the Government Pleader, for fixing a day with regards to the presentation of evidence challenging the respondent-plaintiff’s indigency. In support of his claim, learned counsel relied upon the dictum of the Apex Court in Vijay Pratap Singh & Anr. vs. Dukh Haran Nath Singh & Anr.: 1962 Supp (2) SCR 675; Mathai M. Paikeday vs. C.K. Antony: (2011) 13 SCC 174; Solomon Selvaraj & Ors. vs. Indirani Bhagawan Singh & Ors.: (2023) 1 SCC 349; Minor Cibiraj & Anr. vs. Marimuthu & Ors.: 2004-1-L.W. 335 and submitted that the procedure prescribed under Order 33 of the CPC is mandatory in nature, as is reflected from the express usage of the word ‘shall’ in the said provision. Moreover, while placing reliance upon Mathai M. Paikedy (Supra), it was submitted that the scope of the term “sufficient means” in Order 33 Rule 1 contemplates an individual’s ability or capacity to raise money by available lawful means to pay court fee, wherein factors including a person’s employment status, financial assistance received from family members or close friends, ownership of realizable unencumbered assets etc can be taken into account for determining whether a person is possessed of sufficient means or is an indigent to pay court fee.

6. Per contra, the respondent-plaintiff, who has appeared in person, has raised a preliminary objection qua the maintainabil