To determine indigency under Order 33 CPC, the court must assess whether the party has "sufficient means" beyond what is required for the basic necessities of their family unit; mere ownership of assets by family members or low income does not automatically disqualify a person.

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition and to set aside the order dated 13-04-2023 in Pauper O.P No.03 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend order dated 13-04-2023 passed in P.O.P No.03 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. P PRABHAKAR RAO

Reserved on 18.03.2026

Pronounced on 29.04.2026

Uploaded on 29.04.2026

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 13.04.2023 passed in P.O.P.No.3 of 2021 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2. The Revision petitioner is the respondent while the respondent is the petitioner in P.O.P.No.3 of 2021.

3. For sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred with their status in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the respondent sustained heavy losses in the business and in the course of his attempts to raise funds to discharge the debts, he, through his friends, came into contact with the petitioner, who obtained signatures on documents, making the respondent to believe that they are mortgage bonds, however, when the respondent put the property to sale, he learnt that the petitioner obtained sale deed in respect of the property by misrepresenting that it is only a mortgage deed and therefore, the respondent filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed. It is further stated in the petition that the respondent has no means to pay court fee and hence prayed to court to permit him to file the suit as an indigent person. The petitioner filed counter and resisted the relief sought by the respondent to file the suit in forma pauperis, contending that the respondent is doing real estate business and he has means to pay court fee. The learned trial Judge upon considering the material available on record and upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for parties, allowed the petition under Order-33, Ruls-1 and 2 CPC permitting the respondent to sue as indigent person. The said order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Sai Reshma, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent.

5. Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial Court and grounds of Civil Revision Petition contended that in his cross-examination the respondent categorically admitted that his wife owns an extent of Ac.0-50 cents of land and that his daughter is doing job and getting monthly salary of Rs.13,000/- and this itself indicates that the respondent has means to pay court fee, however, the learned trial Judge without considering the admissions made by respondent in cross-examination and the documentary proof filed by the petitioner erroneously allowed the petition permitting the respondent to sue as indigent person. He would f