1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CIVIL PETITION NO.75/2019

BETWEEN:

Manorama Sirsi,

D/o. late L.R. Sirsi,

Aged about 70 years,

R/o. 1^st Cross,

Channappa Layout,

Shivamogga City 3 577 201.

&Petitioner

(By Sri.S.V.Prakash, Advocate)

AND:

1.

M/s.Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd.,

R.O.Pearlite Industrial Estate,

N.T.Road,

Shivamogga City 3 577 201,

A private limited company

Incorporated under the

Indian Companies Act,

Represented by its

Managing Director.

2.

M.Venugopal,

Director and Ex.Secretary,

M/s.Pearlite Liners Pvt.Ltd.,

N.T.Road,

Shivamogga City 3 577 201.

2

...Respondents

(By Sri Somashekar, Advocate

Sri K.R.Nithyananda, HCGP)

This Civil Petition filed under Order XLIV Rule 1 of

CPC, praying to allow her to prefer the appeal i.e., RFA

No.1971/2017 against the judgment and decree of the trial

Court dated 18.08.2017 in O.S.No.78/2012 as an indigent

person by allowing this petition and etc.

This Civil Petition coming on for Orders this day, the

Court made the following:

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the present petition to allow

her to prefer an appeal as an 8indigent person9.

2.

It is submitted that the petitioner had filed

O.S.No.78/2012 seeking for recovery of damages against

the respondent- company for an amount of Rs.35,00,000/-,

which suit came to be dismissed as per the judgment

passed on 18.08.2017 and the trial Court has further

directed for recovery of Court fee due from the plaintiff.

An appeal against the said judgment is proposed to be filed

and has been filed and in the light of Court fee payable, the

present Civil Petition has been filed.

3

3.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner

submits that the petitioner was permitted to sue as an

8indigent

person9

as

per

the

Orders

passed

in

O.S.No.78/2012. He submitted that the trial Court in

P.Misc.No.51/2005 had permitted the petitioner to sue as

an 8indigent person9. It is the contention of the learned

counsel for petitioner that once the trial Court has granted

permission as per the Order passed in P.Misc.No.51/2005

under Order XLIV Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, no further enquiry in respect of the question whether

the person is an indigent person is required to be made as

long as an affidavit is filed that he has not ceased to be an

indigent person. Accordingly, it is submitted that the

observations made by the Revenue Officers regarding

deposits in Karnataka Bank and Canara Bank including her

joint interest in the property all having been considered by

the

trial

Court

and

order

was

passed

allowing

P.Misc.No.51/2005 and accordingly this Court ought not to

embark upon fresh enquiry. It is noticed that this Court by

the order dated 07.11.2019 had directed the Government

4

advocate to secure report from the Deputy Commissioner,

Shivamogga about the properties owned by the petitioner

and her financial condition. It is noticed from the records

that the learned Government advocate has filed a memo

dated 28.11.2019 and produced a copy of the report of

Tahsildar, Shivamogga who inturn has placed reliance on

the report of the Revenue Inspector.

4.

Perused the said reports filed along with the

memo by the learned Government advocate. It comes out

from the report of the Tahsildar that the petitioner herein

had interest in the property that belongs to her family

bearing Municipal Khatha No.529/529/907 which is a site

measuring about 3,000 sq.ft. It is further submitted that

the petitioner has deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- in Karnataka

Bank and Rs.30,000/- in Cananra Bank and an investment

in terms of post office deposit of Rs.3,34,500/-. The

content of the said mahazars and the report enclosed along

with the memo, is not in dispute.

5

5.

Learned counsel for the defendants before t