The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of indigent status should not consider rental income from the suit property and that the respondent should be given an opportunity to rebut any reports regarding the petitioner's assets.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral). - In the present revision petition, challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for permission to file a civil appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2018 (Annexure P/1), as an indigent person, has been dismissed.

2. The facts leading to the present revision petition are that based on an agreement dated 31.05.2010, respondent No. 1, filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance against the petitioner regarding the suit property i.e. House No. 219, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal. The said suit was decreed in favour of respondent No. 1, vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.2018, passed by the learned trial Court.

3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Karnal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also moved an application dated 16.04.2018 (Annexure P/2), declaring him as forma pauper after receiving the report from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Karnal.

4. Notice of the said application was ordered to be served upon respondent No.1-plaintiff as well as the State i.e., the office of Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. Thereafter, the office of Collector, Karnal, was called upon to submit its report. Resultantly, a report dated 10.09.2019 was submitted to the learned Appellate Court by the office of Tehsildar, Karnal, vide communication dated 11.09.2019 (Annexure P-5) (page-61).

5. On consideration of the report, the learned first Appellate Court vide its impugned order dated 13.09.2019 dismissed the application filed, at the instance of the petitioner, directing him to affix the Court fee in the appeal. Learned Court below rejected the application primarily on the ground that the petitioner was getting income of Rs. 7,000/- per month as rent from the property in question, thus, liable to deposit Court fee. It is the said order dated 13.09.2019 which has been impugned in the present petition.

6. It has been argued on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that once the report dated 10.09.2019 specifically records that besides the property in question, the petitioner does not own any other moveable or immovable property in Kasba, Karnal, the rent derived by him from a portion of the suit property cannot disentitle him for being declared as an indigent person and deprive him of the benefits under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC.

7. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of learned counsel for respondent No. 1-plaintiff that the Court has rightly rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner as he has been deriving rental income out of a portion of the suit property. He further submits that in his application the petitioner has nowhere made any declaration to the effect that he does not own any moveable property. Besides it, he also submits that in case it is found that the rental income derived by the petitioner cannot be considered as his income, respondent No.1 would pray for grant of an opportunity so as to file his objections to the report dated 10.09.2019. He further submits that the report dated 10.09.2019 was submitted before the learned first Appellate Court on 11.09.2019 and the same was considered by it on 13.09.2019 itself without calling upon respondent No.1 to submit their objections, if any.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book.

9. Vide impugned order, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of being an indigent person on the ground that he was getting rent @ Rs.7000/- per month from the property in question which is the subject matter of the suit. However, once the suit property could not be taken into account while determining his sufficient means for the purposes of holding the status of petitioner as an indigent person, a meaningful reading of Order 33 Rule 1 CPC makes it apparent that even