Indore, dated : 20.01.2022

Heard through Video conferencing.

Ms. Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondents No.7 to 11.

1.

Respondents No.1 to 6 are ex parte.

2.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated

06.12.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Rajpur,

District Barwani in Civil Suit No.0/16; whereby an application

under Order 44 Rule 1 of CPC filed by the petitioner has been

dismissed.

3.

Facts of the case in brief are that petitioner has filed civil suit

on 29.06.2016 against the respondents for partition, possession,

declaration, mesne profit and permanent injunction in respect of suit

house bearing No.219 situated in Gram Julwaniya then petitioner

filed an application for filing of suit as an indigent person on the

ground that she is a widow, living alone and her annual income is

less than Rs.20,000/-, therefore, she is unable to pay court fees

Rs.67,300/-. Petitioner submitted that her income certificate dated

08.12.2015 issued by Tehsildar Rajpur reflecting her annual income

to be Rs.20,000/- and trial Court also recorded the statement of the

petitioner on 01.11.2017 then the trial Court on the basis of

Tehsildar's report passed an impugned order dated 06.12.2017

rejecting the application of the petitioner hence this petition is filed.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial Court has

grossly erred in relying the report of the Tehsildar, report is prima

facie misleading and contrary to the report of Patwari. Patwari

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.P. No.370/2018

Nirmalabai W/o Late Jagdish Gupta V/s. Ravikant & Others

-: 1 :-

Digitally signed by NEERAJ

SARVATE

Date: 2022.01.22 15:47:23 IST

SAN

Signature Not Verified

prepared panchnama and clearly found that petitioner is having

income of Rs.20,000/- and her sons are having annual income of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Petitioner is not having cordial relations with her

sons. Income of the family members cannot be seen. Petitioner is

living with her daughters which is reflected from the ration card and

her income is Rs.20,000/- per annum and she is unable to pay the

court fees. Trial Court has grossly erred in not considering income

certificate issued by the Tehsildar. Impugned order passed by the

learned court below is illegal and bad in law, highly perverse, unfair

and unjust to the petitioner hence he prays that the impugned order

be set aside and petitioner be permitted to file civil suit as an

indigent person.

5.

After perusal of the documents filed before the trial Court it

reveals that petitioner has filed his income certificate issued by the

Nayab Tehsildar, Rajpur on 08.12.2015. As per the Certificate her

annual income to be Rs.20,000/-. Petitioner Nirmalabai (PW-1) also

stated in her statement that her annual income is below then

Rs.20,000/- per year and she is unable to pay the court fees of

Rs.67,300/-. Petitioner's statement is well supported by the report

submitted by the Patwari. As per the Patwari report petitioner's

annual income is Rs.20,000/- but as per the Tehsildar's report dated

09.12.2016 income of petitioner's son Pushpendra about

Rs.1,00,000/- per annum has also been included in the income of the

petitioner without assigning any proper reason. It is noteworthy that

the petitioner made her son Pushpendra defendant in the proposed

civil suit, therefore, Pushpendra's income cannot be included in the

income of the petitioner. Petitioner is an old lady aged about 60

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.P. No.370/2018

Nirmalabai W/o Late Jagdish Gupta V/s. Ravikant & Others

-: 2 :-

Digitally signed by NEERAJ

SARVATE

Date: 2022.01.22 15:47:23 IST

SAN

Signature Not Verified

years. She is also widow. Under such circumstances, the findings of

the trial Court that petitioner is not an indigent person found to be

perverse in nat