IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 76 OF 2020 BETWEEN:

1. SMT. C. YASHODA

57 YEARS W/O C. NAGESH R/AT NO.3/4, 25^TH CROSS, KILARI ROD, BENGLAURU - 560 053 PRESENTLY R/AT 41/2, 4^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA D.R., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed AND:

by SHARADAVANI B

1. MUNILAKSHMAMMA Location: High Court of 50 YEARS Karnataka W/O H. RAJU, R/AT NO.39, 4^TH CROSS, 2^ND MIAN, A.K. COLONY, HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.G. LOKESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2019 PASSED IN P.MISC.NO.17/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 33 RULE 1 R/W.SEC.151 OF CPC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent is absent.

2. Revision petitioner is the respondent in Pauper Miscellaneous No.17/2012 challenging the order passed by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-3) allowing the Pauper Miscellaneous No.17/2012 by order dated 11.09.2019.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

3.1. Respondent - Munilakshmamma filed a miscellaneous petition to sue her as an indigent person in P.Misc.No.17/2012.

3.2. Learned Trial Judge after holding an enquiry as to the means of the respondent to pay the Court fee, got satisfied that except wearing apparels, the respondent did not have financial capacity to pay the Court fee and permitted the petitioner to file the suit as an indigent person.

4. The correctness of the said order is called in question, in this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds said in the petition contented that respondent has suppressed the real income and has filed the pauper miscellaneous case only with an oblique motive and same has not been properly considered by the Trial Court and sought for allowing the revision petition.

6. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

7. On such perusal of the material on record, an enquiry has been held and thereafter, respondent has been treated as an indigent person.

8. Therefore, by exercising the power under Order XXXIII of Code of Civil Procedure, respondent is permitted to file the suit as an indigent person without paying the Court fee.

9. Necessarily, if the respondent succeeds in the suit, with regard to the Court fee is concerned, there will be charge and the respondent is required to make good the Court fee.

10. Moreover, passing of such order is between the Court and the respondent.

11. Under such circumstances, the impugned order does not require interference in this revisional jurisdiction.

12. Hence, following:

ORDER

Revision petition is dismissed Sd/-

(V SRISHANANDA)

JUDGE KAV CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36