IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 14 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 2066 of 2015 NAND KISHORE AND OTHERS Versus SMT. REKHA BAI Appearance:

Shri Om Prakash Namdeo - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Vikalp Soni - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.

2. The appellant has preferred the present Misc. Appeal taking exception to the order dated 03/09/2015 in MJC No.02 of 2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hata to the Court of District Judge, Damoh whereby an application filed by the appellant under the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC for permission to sue in forma pauperis has been dismissed.

3. For the sake of brevity, the parties shall be referred by their rank in the trial Court.

4. The facts necessary for disposal of present lis are that the appellants are the original plaintiffs. A civil suit was preferred by the plaintiffs for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,90,000/-. Along with the suit, an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC was also filed seeking permission to sue as forma pauperis and the said application was registered as MJC No.02 of 2014.

5. As per the averments of the plaint, the date of incidence was

14/08/2007. On this unfortunate day, the defendant used an electric wire for taking illegal electricity connection for her house and the said electric wire was kept open. On that day, at 7:30 am, when Vimal, son of the plaintiff was passing near the said electric wire, he came into contact with it and sustained an electric shock. When another son of the plaintiff Dilip went to rescue him, he also sustained an electric shock. Both sons of the plaintiff died on the spot due to electrocution. The record of the case further reveals that a criminal case, was registered against the defendant, who was convicted and sentenced for 2 years with fine. Thus, the negligence of the defendant found proved.

6. The plaintiff filed a plaint seeking compensation for the death of his two sons due to negligence of the defendant, along with the application for permission to sue as an indigent person. The said application was opposed by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff is having agricultural land in his name, and therefore, does not fall under the category of an indigent person, and is liable to pay the requisite Court fees. Thereafter the trial Court called for a report from the Tehsildar and upon consideration, rejected the application to sue as an indigent person on the ground that the appellant possessed irrigated agricultural land and was therefore, not entitled to get the benefit of provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Court below overlooked the documents regarding the joint family properties of the plaintiffs. The State Authority did not conduct any enquiry as per Order 33 Rule 7 of the CPC. It is further vehemently argued that the Tahsildar himself issued a certificate showing the annual income of the plaintiff no.1 as Rs.9,600/- per year. This certificate is required to be considered while passing the order impugned. A request has been made to allow the appeal and to permit the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person.

8. E converso, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer on the ground that the plaintiff is having agricultural land in his name, and therefore, not entitled to any relief from this Hon’ble Court. A prayer for dismissal of the present petition has been made.

9. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

10. On perusal of the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC it reveals that any person, not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the Court fee prescribed by law, can approach the Court with a request to exempt from payment of court fee. The word “sufficient means to enable him to pay the court fee” as used in Rule