Indigent persons must comply with procedural requirements in applications to avoid court fees, and failure to do so justifies rejection.

"(1) That, the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Trial Court may kindly be please to set-aside/quashed.

(2) That, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC may kindly be allowed and petitioner be exempt from filing the court fees in the suit.

(3) That, other suitable writ order or direction for doing justice in the matter may kindly be issued. Cost may kindly be granted."

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order. As per the report appended on the record, it reveals that the annual income of the petitioner is Rs.80,000/- and personal income is Rs.20,000/- per year. Therefore, learned trial court has erred in Signature Not Verified assuming that the petitioner/plaintiff is capable of paying the Court fees which is Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside. He relied upon a judgment in the case of Mohan Singh Vs. Ravindranath and others , 2011 (I)MPWN 19.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.5 to 9 and respondent No.10 have opposed the application on the ground that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record.

5. The provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 and 2 are as follows:-

"1. Suit may be instituted by (indigent person) - Subject to the following provisions, any suit may be instituted by (an indigent person).

[Explanation I - A person is an indigent person,-

(a) if he is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt) from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or (b) where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the subject-matter of the suit.

Explanation II.- Any property which is acquired by a person after the presentation of his application for permission to sue as an indigent person, and before the decision of the application, shall be taken into account in considering the question whether or not the applicant is an indigent person.

Explanation III- Where the plaintiff sues in a representative capacity, the question whether he is an indigent person shall be determined with reference to the means possessed by him in such capacity.]

[1A. Inquiry into the means of an indigent person - Every inquiry into the question whether or not a person is an indigent person shall be made, in the first instance, by the chief ministerial officer of the Court, unless the Court otherwise directs, and the Court may adopt the report of such officer as its own finding or may itself make an inquiry into the question.]

2. Contents of application- Every application for permission to sue as Signature Not Verified [an indigent person] shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits; a schedule of any movable or immovable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof, shall be annexed thereto; and it shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings."

6. The perusal of impugned order shows that the learned trial Court has rejected the application of petitioner under Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC inter alia on the ground that the application has not been filed as per the provisions of Order 33 Rule 22. The applicant/petitioner has not submitted the list of movable and immovable property and no estimated value of it has been shown in that schedule, nor there is a verification of such property. Therefore, the application in want of compliance of the provisions has been dismissed.

7. Perusal of provision of Order 33 Rule 2 of CPC, it reveals the petitioner/applicant is un