A claimant's eligibility to sue as an indigent person under Order 33 CPC is contingent on complete and honest asset disclosure; non-disclosure negates claims of indigency.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2025 This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 22.01.2024 of the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery in O.P.(Indigent) No. 1 of 2021.

Appellant was the petitioner in the O.P.(Indigent).

2. Appellant had preferred the O.P.(Indigent) seeking permission to sue as an indigent person claiming compensation for the loss purportedly caused to him due to the acquisition and withholding of his property by the respondents without payment of compensation for more than 8 years. The amount sought to be realized by the appellant from the respondents was Rs.16,59,641/-. The total court fee payable under Section 22 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act was Rs.1,56,176/- and the legal benefit fund was Rs.16,597/- also had to be paid. Since the appellant had no means to pay the court fee and the legal benefit fund, he had submitted the application invoking Order 33 of the CPC drawing it up in the prescribed form and specifying the particulars of his immovable and movable assets. The Subordinate Judge had called for a report from the District Collector, Wayanad as contemplated in Order 33 Rule 1A and in the said report, it had been inter alia stated that though the appellant held title to only the petition schedule property, he had in his possession another property with respect to which no purchase certificate had been issued by the Government. A hearing was conducted and the appellant was examined as PW1. He had deposed that he was a pensioner and was receiving a pension of Rs.30,500/- per month and that he had a Bank account. The Sub Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant to sue as an indigent person inter alia holding that, he had suppressed property details and there was no explanation for such non disclosure. It was also held that the petition was silent as to the verification part as contemplated under Order 33 Rule 2. For the said reasons, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the indigent petition filed by the appellant, Challenging the said dismissal, the appellant has filed this FAO.

3. Heard Sri. Nirmal V. Nair, Advocate, for the Appellant and Smt.Rekha C. Nair, Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant had not pleaded about the additional property in his possession since he had no title to the said property and as he could not have raised the court fee even by selling the same. The learned counsel further contended that the Sub Court ought to have considered whether there was any willful act on the part of the appellant to evade payment of court fee and ought to have granted sufficient time to rectify the defects in the form of the application. The genuine claim of the appellant ought not to have been dismissed on technicalities. There was no material suppression of facts and that the District Collector had not reported that the appellant was earning sufficient income from his land property to enable him to pay court fee or that he had sufficient funds in his Bank account to meet the payment of court fees. The learned counsel contended that mere possession of assets is not the criteria in determining the application under Order 33 Rule 1 and the question whether the applicant had instant money to pay off the court fees ought to have been considered. Reliance was placed on the dictum laid down by this court inThankamani and others v. Vijayadharan [ 2021(5) KHC 395 ] andMuraleedharan Nair v. P.Usha Kumari [ 2022 KHC 1053 ]. The learned counsel thus prayed that the Order of the sub court may be set aside or remanded back for fresh consideration.

5. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the responde