SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(MP) 928

T.S.DOABIA
Vandna Bhargava – Appellant
Versus
Kapil Bhargava – Respondent


Advocates:
K.N. Gupta for applicant; Nemo for respondents.

ORDER

1. The short question which needs to be decided in this petition preferred under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is whether a legal representative of a plaintiff who has been allowed to sue as an indigent person can be called upon to pay Court fee merely because such legal representative is in a position to pay the Court Tee. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that such a person i.e. a person seeking to continue a suit which was permitted to be prosecuted under Order XXXIII is bound to pay the Court fee. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is not the intendment of the provisions. The basic argument is that it is the liability of the person who was permitted to sue as indigent person is to be examined. He submits that if this be the position then the heirs cannot be called upon to pay the Court fee.

2. A perusal of the various decided cases would support the proposition that on the death of the original plaintiff who has been permitted to prosecute a suit as an indigent person his legal representatives can prosecute the litigation if they are in a position to show that they are also not in a position to pay the Court fee. The prepond









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top