The court upheld the dismissal of a petition for exemption from court fees due to the appellant's failure to provide necessary evidence of indigence as required under the CPC.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

The above appeal is filed under XLIII Rule 1(na) of the Code of Civil Procedure Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ challenging the order dated 30.03.2019 passed in MIsc.No.6/2018 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’.

2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present appeal are that the appellant filed a petition under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the CPC to exempt him from paying court fee in the intended suit to be filed against the respondents. The Trial Court by order dated 30.03.2019, dismissed the said petition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

3. It is forthcoming that the Trial Court while considering the petition filed by the petitioner, has recorded the following findings:

“12. These documents per-se are not directly connected to this petition on hand. Another important aspect of the matter is the present petition has not fulfilled the conditions to be complied by the Petitioner in a petition of the present nature. So far as order 33 Rules 2 to 4 of the CPC have not been complied with. Likewise when the petition averments and also the evidence tendered by P.W.1 is gone through they do not show the cause of action. If according to P.W.1 the Respondent No.1 has committed fraud and cheated him. In an intended suit filed by him he should come out with specific ascertained amount of money to be recovered from the Respondent No.1. As I have stated earlier the plaint prayers are vague and besides that it is without any valuation slip because this petition is unable to value the suit and to pay the proper Court fee.

13. So far as requirement of this petition is that there is a nil material to show that where he is staying, who is looking after his sustenance, what is his monthly expenses and which of the movable and immovable properties he possesses. Even though the Respondent No.3 has been placed exparte but nothing prevented him to place documents to show that what does he not possess. Simply it is not enough that if he claims that he is penniless it is no ground to hold him pauper only for the purpose of paying the Court fee. Likewise in this direction the P.W.1 was more interested in placing the materials of Respondents No.1 and 2 rather than showing before the Court that what means he possesses, and there is no material to form an opinion that whether the P.W.I has a family, if he has a family whether his wife is a working lady or if he has children whether they are major in age, whether they are working or not. Under such circumstances, without understanding the consequences and legal implications of order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC present petition has been filed. Likewise the original suit which the Petitioner wants to file, its prayers are vague and there is no valuation slip. Under such circumstances, this petition cannot be a platform for the P.W.1 file another suit. Under such circumstances virtually there is no cause of action to file this petition and the intended suit.”

(emphasis supplied)

4. Although it is sought to be contended in the present appeal that having regard to the fact that the respondents have not filed any objections, the petition ought to have been allowed, it is forthcoming that the appellant has not produced any material before the Trial Court to demonstrate that he had no source of income and he was an indigent person. The appellant having failed to demonstrate that he has satisfied the conditions as required under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the CPC and the Trial Court having rightly appreciated the material on record and recorded a finding that no documents have been produced by the petitioner, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are in any manner erroneous and contrary to the material on record and