O R D E R

This petition is filed to struck of the Pauper Original Petition No.192 of

2020 in the Unnumbered O.S.No.. of 2020 on the file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the defendants in the unnumbered suit on the file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore. The suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, claiming himself to be a pauper. The specific case of the first respondent/plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to his father through a Sale Deed vide Document No.3968/1961 dated 10.07.1961. The 1st respondent/plaintiff's father had executed a Settlement Deed vide Document No.2057/1998 dated

16.07.1998.

3. The first respondent/plaintiff was the distributor of Aachi Masala. To develop his business, he secured an Overdraft of Rs.22,50,000/- from State Bank of Hyderabad, V.O.C Park Branch. The first respondent/plaintiff was unable to repay the loan amount. Therefore, the bank had brought the suit property, which was given as security for the loan, for sale and the sale notice was published in the Newspaper on 28.07.2018. Subsequently, the first respondent/plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards part of the loan and therefore, the auction was cancelled.

4. Meanwhile, since the first respondent/plaintiff was unable to pay the balance amount to the bank, the petitioners/defendants came forward to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the first respondent/plaintiff in lieu of executing a mortgage deed by the first respondent/plaintiff. The petitioners/defendants suggested that a sale deed can be executed in favour of them and on repayment of the amount, a reverse sale deed will be executed in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid to the bank on 29.10.2018 and a sale agreement was made and the first respondent/plaintiff was forced to sign in pages nos.3 and 4 of the sale agreement.

5. The defendants promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the first respondent/plaintiff and execute the sale deed. Accordingly, a sale deed was executed vide Document No.6383 of 2019 and when the first respondent/plaintiff demanded the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the petitioners did not pay and tried to take over the possession of the suit property. The petitioners/defendants are also trying to make construction in the property. Therefore, the suit was filed seeking a declaration that the sale deed registered in the name of the petitioners/defendants on 04.07.2019 to be declared as null and void and also granting a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for other reliefs.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that the suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff along with a petition in I.A.No.192 of 2020 under Order 33 Rule 1 to 3 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking permission of the Court to declare that the first respondent/plaintiff is a pauper and that he is not able to pay the court fee. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that the first respondent/plaintiff has sold only half of his share and he is the owner of another half share and he has the capacity to pay the court fee. However, he has filed the petition under Order 33 Rule 1 to 3 of the Civil Procedure Code only to avoid paying the court fee and therefore, it has to be struck off.

8. Heard learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

9. The suit was filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs by the first respondent/plaintiff, claiming himself to be a pauper, saying that he is not in a position to pay court fee.

10. The learned Government Advocate submits that the first respondent/plaintiff has sufficient means to pay the court fee.

11. The