Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. S.M.Subramaniam, Mr. Mohammed Shaffiq, JJ
S.Venkatesan – Appellant
Versus
Sundaram Fasteners Limited – Respondent
C MP.No.19328 of 2025 in OSA.SR.No.17760 of 2025
For the Appellant(s): Mr.D.Prabhu, Mukunth Arun Kumar
For the Respondent(s): Mr.P.R.Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Seethapathy
The determination of indigency depends on a careful assessment of an applicant's total financial situation, including income and assets, and previous applications do not preclude new claims if circumstances change.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Orders XXXIII and XLIV - Application for filing appeal as indigent person - Determination of indigency involves examining financial capacity and ability to pay court fees - Factors such as income, assets, and support must be considered for eligibility - Previous refusals for indigent status do not bar subsequent applications provided circumstances have changed - Court concluded that the petitioner possesses sufficient means and dismissed the application to appeal as an indigent person.(Paras 31, 32)
(B) Indigency - Statutory framework requires careful scrutiny to prevent abuse of court provisions - The inquiry into financial capacity must consider all relevant factors. (Paras 10, 17, 23)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for appeal as indigent. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding financial status. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. definition and criteria for indigency. (Para 10 , 12 , 19) |
| 4. court's assessment of sufficiency of means. (Para 18 , 26 , 32) |
ORDER
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
| S.No. | TABLE OF CONTENTS | Page No. |
| I | Background of the Case | 3 |
| II | Who is an Indigent Person? | 5 |
| III | “Sufficient Means”- Meaning | 6 |
| IV | Procedure for Filing Suits by Indigent Persons | 10 |
| V | Inquiry into Indigency (Order XXXIII Rule 1-A CPC) | 11 |
| (A) Two Situations | 12 | |
| (a) Already Indigent at Trial | 13 | |
| (b) Became Indigent After Decree | 13 | |
| (B) Who Conducts the Inquiry? | 13 | |
| VI | Scope of Filing Appeals as an Indigent Person despite earlier Rejection of Suit | 14 |
| VII | Safeguards Against Abuse: Order XXXIII, Rule 5 CPC | 18 |
| (A) Legislative Framework of Rule 5 | 18 | |
| VIII | Finality of the Officer’s Report and Court’s Supervisory Role in Appeals by Indigent Persons | 20 |
| IX | Conclusion | 23 |
The present civil miscellaneous petition has been instituted by the petitioner seeking permission to file the Original Side Appeal (OSA) in the capacity of an indigent person. I. Background of the Case:
2. The facts, in nutshell, show that the suit in CS.No.507 of 2012, instituted by the respondent herein seeking a direction to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,01,62,284/- along with interest, has been decreed. Challenging the said judgment and decree, an OSA has been preferred. Along with the OSA, the present petition seeking permission to sue as an indigent person has been instituted.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner has no sufficient means to pay the Court fee, which is approximately about Rs.22,80,000/-. Since the petitioner has no source of income, permission is to be granted to prefer the OSA as an indigent person.
4. The petitioner states that he is not in employment after being terminated from the respondent company. He is aged about 66 years and has no other source of income. He is living out of the help extended by his relatives and friends.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would oppose by stating that the petitioner possesses properties. The very statement that he has no source of income is false and incorrect. The bank statements filed by the petitioner in the typed set of papers along with the OSA would indicate that the petitioner is having sufficient source of income and during the years 2024 and 2025, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.58,06,479.20/- in his accounts. The transaction details would also show that the petitioner is not an indigent person. Since the bank statements itself would be sufficient to form an opinion that the petitioner has not made out a prima-facie case, no further inquiry is required.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate that an inquiry is contemplated under Order XXXIII and Order XLIV.
7. In reply, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would contend that Order XLIV of CPC read with Order XXXIII is not applicable to the petitioner, as he does not satisfy the requirements contemplated. The petitioner is in possession of the valuable properties, both movable and immovable. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the findings made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph Nos.34 of the impugned judgment.
8. Under Exhibits P23 and P24, the petitioner had created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds on the properties covered by two sale deeds dated 27.10.2003 and 05.09.2008. The property still stands in the name of the petitioner, and he has filed an affidavit stating that he has not made any attempt to dispose of the said properties. Even during the suit proceedings, the petitioner herein has not pleaded anything about his indigent circumstances. Therefore, the present petition has been filed in order to circumvent payment of Court fee and thus, liable to be rejected.
9. Rival submissions made between the parties are considered.
II. Who is an Indigent Person ? :
10. “An ‘indigent person’
