Back
REKHA BORANA
Shambhu Singh Rajpurohit – Appellant
Versus
Leena Rajpurohit – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition background (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. non-compliance with procedural requirements (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondents' justification for indigent status (Para 5) |
| 4. legal definition of indigent persons under cpc (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. importance of property disclosure in applications (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. court's opinion on case compliance (Para 11) |
| 7. final order and conclusion of the court (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumerpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 12/2017 whereby the application under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the plaintiffs respondents for suing as indigent person has been allowed. A suit for cancellation and declaration of the relinquishment deed to be void and ineffective qua their rights; partition; permanent and mandatory injunction was preferred by the respondent-applicants Nos.1 to 3 (respondent No. 3, being a minor-through his natural guardian-Mother).
2. An application under Order 33, CPC was also preferred alongwith the suit seeking permission to sue as an indigent. The said application has been allowed vide the orde
The requirement for a property schedule in indigent applications is procedural and should not preclude access to justice if no bad faith is shown.
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....
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....
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.
The main legal point established is that the Family Court must follow the mandatory procedure under Order XXXIII Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure when allowing a party to file as an Indigent Per....
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.
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
