The definition of 'indigent person' under Order 33, Rule 1, C. P. C. includes such means on which the bare living of the plaintiff or the appellant and the members of his family is dependent.

Kamlesh Sharma, J—The appellants-defendants and proforma respondents-defendants Nos. 2 to 4 suffered a decree for the recovery of Rs. 26,166.90. In order to challenge the decree, the appellants-defendants filed an application under Order 44, C. P C. accompanied by a Memorandum of Appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Solan, to seek permission to appeal as indigent persons, The application of the appellants-defendants was dismissed by order dated 30th July, 1991 holding that they are not indigent persons and are required to pay court-fees on or before 30th August, 1991. The appellants-defendants did not pay the Court-fees and consequently their appeal was also dismissed on 30th August, 199 h Hence the present Regular Second Appeal by the appellants-defendants an indigent persons for which permission has been granted by a separate order of the day today.

2. Refusing permission, the District Judge, had observed ;— "....The said business has since been closed down for want of working capital and that he is earning Rs. 400 to 500 per month from tailoring and repair of hosiery goods. It is also in the statement that he is living in a rented house for which he is paying rent of Rs. 250 per month. He has also deposed that with one knitting machine, three pull-overs can be knitted in a day and that he can earn Rs. 20 to 25 per pull-over In other words the petitioner can earn about Rs 60 to 75 per month (sic). Calculated on this basis, the monthly earning of the petitioner would come to about Rs. 2,000 per month. The court-fee payable in the present case comes to Rs 2,497.60. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the petitioner Om Parkash is not an indigent person and he can pay the requisite court-fee...."

3. Apparently for holding that the appellants-defendants are not indigent persons, the District Judge has not only drawn wrong inferences from the statement of the appellant defendant Om Prakash bat has also not applied the correct principles of law’ The words "indigent person" have been defined in Order 33, Rule I, C P. C. as under ;— “ Explanation1.—-A person is an Indigent person,— (a) if he is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or (b) where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the subject matter of the suit. Explanation II —Any property which is acquired by a person after the presentation of his application for permission to sue as an indigent person, and before the decision of tine application, shall be taken into account in considering the question whether or not the applicant is an indigent person, Explanation III —Where the plaintiff sues in a representatives capacity, the question whether he is an indigent person shall be determined with reference to the means possessed by him in such capacity."

4. The words sufficient means have been interpreted by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gehru v. Charan Dass Dogra, Advocate, ILR 1981 HP 307 and Chief Justice Misra (as his Lordship then was) observed t— "5. Explanation I to Rule 1 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines an indigent person as one who is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law to the plaint In such suit1. We are not concerned with the rest of the rule. By now it is well settled that possession of sufficient means does not mean possession of sufficient property. It is possible that one may be possessed of sufficient property but still may not be possessed of sufficient means It will depend on the nature of the property. It will also depend whethe