2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 35433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. Manu, J
Raju K. Mathews – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Pundalik Tendulkar – Respondent
FAO No. 63 of 2026

A plaintiff who has paid partial court fees at the time of institution may subsequently seek permission to prosecute as an indigent person if they experience genuine financial incapacity. Eligibility is determined by the practical ability to raise liquid funds for fees without personal destitution, not mere asset ownership.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIII Rule 1 - Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - Section 4-A - Permission to prosecute suit as indigent person - A plaintiff who has instituted a suit by paying one-tenth of the court fee under Section 4-A is not precluded from seeking permission to prosecute the suit as an indigent person at a subsequent stage if they face genuine financial distress. The right to sue as an indigent person is to be determined by the ability to raise funds, not total destitution or lack of assets. (Paras 9, 10, 14, 24, 25, 27)

(B) Indigent Person - Sufficient means - Test for - Whether a person is without ‘sufficient means’ to pay court fee is not a question of owning property, but of the capability to convert possessions into liquid cash without undue hardship. Assets exempt from attachment or the subject matter of the suit must be excluded from this assessment. The court must take a practical, liberal approach consistent with the constitutional mandate of equal justice. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 17)

(C) Procedural Law - Filing of application - An application seeking permission to sue as an indigent person after the institution of the suit, if filed as an interlocutory application supported by an affidavit detailing the reasons for the change in financial status, is maintainable and satisfies the substantial compliance of the procedural rules. (Paras 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, after instituting a suit and paying the initial one-tenth court fee, faced a severe accident resulting in long-term incapacitation and loss of income. Consequently, he filed applications to be permitted to prosecute the suit as an indigent person, citing inability to pay the balance court fee. The trial court rejected these applications on grounds relating to the appellant's status as an income tax payee, the lack of averments in the original plaint regarding financial status, and the view that such applications are not maintainable post-institution.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court's rejection was based on flawed reasoning. Being an income tax payer does not automatically imply the availability of liquid funds. The court should have evaluated whether the appellant was practically capable of raising the specific sum required for court fees without causing undue hardship to his existence. The court further clarified that the law does not prohibit filings for indigent status after the initiation of a suit, provided the request is bona fide.

Issues: Whether a plaintiff who has paid part of the court fee upon institution can subsequently seek permission to prosecute the suit as an indigent person, and whether the possession of immovable property and status as an income tax payee automatically disentitles one from such a claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant's inability to pay court fees due to supervening financial hardship, even after the initiation of a suit, entitles them to seek the benefit of provisions for indigent persons. The test of 'sufficient means' is a dynamic, practical assessment of liquid resources rather than a static valuation of assets, strictly aligning with the constitutional guarantee of access to justice.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside and matter remitted for fresh consideration.