Back
DAYA CHAUDHARY
Darshan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Harbans Kaur – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves the legal question of whether plaintiffs seeking to proceed as indigent persons have sufficient means to pay court fees, considering properties exempt from attachment or sale in execution of a decree (!) (!) .
The assessment of "sufficient means" includes properties that are exempt from attachment or sale, as listed under relevant legal provisions. However, it does not include means on which the bare living of the parties depends; rather, it refers to the capacity to raise funds through lawful means (!) .
The properties listed as exempt from attachment, such as certain properties under specified clauses, are to be included when evaluating the indigency status of the applicant (!) .
The court clarified that mere receipt of government allowances or pensions for meeting daily expenses does not constitute sufficient means to pay court fees, as these are used for day-to-day needs and not for raising funds for legal proceedings (!) .
The court emphasized that the determination of indigency should be based on whether the applicant possesses property or resources enough to pay the prescribed court fee, rather than on their income alone. If the applicant does not possess sufficient means, they are entitled to proceed as an indigent person (!) .
The appellate court found that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient means to pay the court fee, as they lacked property or resources capable of generating such funds, and thus rightly allowed them to proceed as indigent persons (!) .
The judgment dismissed the petitioners' challenge, affirming that the order allowing the plaintiffs to proceed as indigent persons was correct and based on proper legal assessment (!) .
Overall, the legal principles reaffirm that the assessment of indigency involves a comprehensive evaluation of assets, exempt properties, and lawful means of raising funds, excluding mere subsistence income or allowances (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.:- By this judgment of mine, two cases bearing CR Nos.2726 and 2687 of 2017 shall be disposed of as common question of law and issues are involved. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CR No.2687 of 2017.
2. Petitioners, namely, Darshan Singh, Gurmail Singh, Avtar Singh alias Taar Singh and Gurvinder Singh have approached this Court by way of filing CR No.2687 of 2017 to challenge impugned order dated 12.01.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional District Judge, Mansa, whereby, the Court has allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs-respondents to pursue their case as indigent persons by reversing the order passed by the trial Court.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present revision petition are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit under the Fatal Accident Act, 1885. As per allegations of the respondents, the petitioners had caused the death of Bhog Singh, who was husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 5. Respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for damages as indigent persons under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC. The claim in the suit was for damages amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- and the C
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
