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

1986 Supreme(MP) 541

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
P.C. PATHAK, J.
Mangilal – Appellant
Vs.
M.P.E.B. Jabalpur – Respondent
M.A. No. 163 of 1985 (I);
Decided on : 18-07-1986

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.G. Upadhyaya
For the Respondent: A.S. Garg

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.33, R.1 – indigent person – who is – person earning Rs.4/ – per day and having a kachcha house of Rs.1,000/ – – is an indigent person.

       (2) Evidence Act, 1872 – S.60 – hearsay evidence – is of no value.

        Short Note

       1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose application for permission to sue as indigent persons was rejected.

       2. The plaintiffs filed a suit of damages of Rs.25000/ – for death of their son by coming in contact with the live wire of electricity attached to a pole belonging to the respondent, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. The appellants stated that they are not in position to pay Court fees required for the suit.

       3. Held: Appellant No.1 entered the witness – box and he stated that he is working as a labourer and his income is not more than Rs.4/ – per day. In cross – examination be admitted that be has a Kachcha house but its value is not more Rs.1,000/•. As against this, the respondent examined one Janardan and Brijlal who stated that the value of the appellant's house is about Rs. 20,000/ – that of one Bigha land Rs. 10,000/ – and price of two buffaloes is Rs.3,000/ – . However, these witnesses admitted in cross – examination that they have no personal knowledge and their statement is based on information received from village people. Under the circumstances evidence led by the respondent is based on hearsay. There is no material on record to disbelieve the statement of the appellants and their witnesses. I am of the opinion that the appellants have established that they are indigent persons and are not in position to pay the required Court – fees.

       Appeal allowed.

Mangilal vs M. P. E. B. Jabalpur - 1986 Supreme(MP) 541
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