Honble MATHUR, J.–The instant appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.01.2004 dismissing the appellants application under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to file appeal as an indigent person.

(2). The necessary facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant Smt. Manjulata married to Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat on 15.2.1982. Out of the wedlock, she gave birth to a male and a female child. Her husband Dr. Jugtawat contracted the second marriage on 28.6.1999 with one Suman and started living separately in a house at Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur. The appellant continued to reside with both her children viz; Deepak aged about 21 years of age & Rakhi aged about 19 years in the House No. 62-A, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. Admittedly, no divorce has taken place between the appellant and Dr. Jugtawat and, as such, the marriage still subsists. The respondent Sidhkaran, father of Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat, filed a suit for possession of the house in which the appellant is living. The suit has been decreed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur vide judgment & decree dated 29.4.2000. The appellant has preferred an appeal to this Court, which has been registered as S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 121/2000. Alongwith the appeal, a pauper application being S.B. Civil Misc. Pauper Application No. 1/2000 was filed seeking permission to file the appeal as an indigent person, as she was not in a position to pay the court-fee of Rs. 50,140/-. An enquiry had been conducted by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) as to the appellants claim being indigent person. The Collector,. Jodhpur submitted his report certifying that the appellant is an indigent person. However, the Enquiry Officer viz; Dy. Registrar (Judl.), as per report dated 16.12.2002, has recorded a finding against the appellant that she is not an indigent person. Learned Single Judge, relying on the report of Dy. Registrar (Judl.) has rejected the application filed by the appellant seeking permission to file an appeal as indigent person.

(3). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 30.1.2004. According to the respondent, the appellant is not an indigent person or pauper, as she is holding sufficient funds, valuable ornaments and other movable and immovable properties. The respondent has given details with respect to the appellants properties as follows:

``i. Rs. 41,000/- in Bank A/c;

ii. Two kilogram Silver Ornaments worth Rs. 14,000/-;

iii. 35 Tolas of gold ornaments worth Rs. 2,39,000/-;

iv. Movable house property worth Rs. 10,000/-;

v. A plot measuring 40 x 60ft. in Kudi Bhagtasni; &

vi. Maintenance from Dr. Jugtawat at the rate of Rs. 1500/- p.m. with effect from 22.7.2000.

(4). It is averred by the appellant that the plot & ornaments have been sold to meet the expenses required for maintaining herself and her son & daughter. It is further averred that she has no independent source of income except the amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month.

(5). As per the enquiry report, the appellant was having 376.400 gms. Of gold ornaments worth Rs. 1,37,862/-. It was also found that there was no evidence to show that the ornaments and the plot have been sold. After appreciation of material on record, the learned Single Judge recorded a finding as follows:

``In the instant case, it has come on record that the applicant was having 35 tolas of gold and 2 kilograms of silver apart from Cash in bank etc. and she could not lead sufficient, cogent and convincing evidence regarding selling out those ornaments. So much of ornaments are not ordinarily and daily worn by a lady. Thus, the case of the applicant does not fall within the purview of Section 60 of the Code and the applicant cannot be said to be an indigent or pauper person.

(6). Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the parties and having perused the record, we a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document