The court emphasized the necessity of complete financial disclosure in applications to sue as an indigent person, with the burden on the opposing party to prove otherwise.

JUDGMENT

This original petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam in I.O.P. No.19 of 2018 permitting the 1^st respondent to sue as an indigent person.

2. The petitioners herein are defendants 1 and 2 in the I.O.P. The 1^st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the 2^nd respondent is the 3^rd defendant therein. The status of the parties will be referred to as in the I.O.P.

3. In Ext.P1 plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff is the Managing Partner of M/s Amber Moli Homes, a registered partnership firm, which is not presently carrying on business due to financial constraints. The firm was engaged in the business of building constructions, land modification works and in due course of their business, they entered into agreement with defendants 1 and 2. The suit is for realisation of an amount of Rs. 1,12,48,000/- due as per the agreement, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is stated that the agreements entered into between the parties are in the name of the firm, and that the plaintiff, being the Managing Partner of the firm, is competent to file the suit as he is the signatory to the agreements. It is stated that the valuation for the purpose of court fee as per Section 22 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1959 is Rs.8,30,880/- and the plaintiff is not in a position to raise the requisite amount to pay the court fee. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed Ext.P2 petition under Order 33 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (the CPC) to permit him to sue as an indigent person and exempt him from paying the court fee.

4. The defendants 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit stating that the plaintiff is having sufficient means to pay the court fee and as such, he is not an indigent person. It was contended that the assets and income of other partners of the firm are suppressed by the plaintiff and without the firm and other partners on the party array, the application is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. The plaintiff was examined as PW1. Ext.B1 lawyer's notice and Ext. B2 RC particulars of vehicle bearing No. KL-39 C 0391 was marked on the side of the defendants. The learned Sub Judge caused an enquiry into the means of the plaintiff through the Village Officer who reported that the plaintiff is not having any movable or immovable properties.

6. The learned Sub Judge, by Ext.P7 order, held that there is no evidence before the court to show that the plaintiff has sufficient means to pay the court fee. It was observed that the plaintiff does not have any permanent employment, and that the car owned by him, as evident from Ext. B2 is not in his possession and has been given to his friend. The learned Sub Judge also observed that there is no evidence before the court to show that there are other partners in the firm or that they have sufficient means to pay the court fee. Accordingly, Ext.P2 application was allowed and the plaintiff was permitted to sue as an indigent person and the I.O.P. was allowed to be converted as original suit. The relevant portion of Ext. P7 order reads as follows:

“7. The certificate produced by the village officer clearly shows that petitioner is having no movable or immovable properties. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents elaborately cross examined PW1. But nothing was brought out in evidence to disbelieve the evidence given by PW1. Absolutely, there is no evidence before this court that petitioner is having sufficient means to pay court fee shown in the plaint. It is come out in evidence that petitioner is not having any permanent job and his wife was employed in a private sc