IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026

CIVIL REVISION No. 137 of 2011

DR.V.P.KHARE

Versus

KU.MONIKA AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Rohit Bansal, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha, Government Advocate for respondent

No.3/State.

ORDER plaintiff that because of medical negligence of applicant and respondent No. 2, she has suffered an amputation of her right hand. A prayer under section 35 of the Court Fees Act was also made on the ground that the yearly income of the minor plaintiff is less than the income specified in the notification issued under section 35 of the Court Fees Act.

This civil revision, under section 115 of CPC, has been filed against

the order dated 25/8/2011 passed by II Additional District Judge (FTC), Ganjbasoda, in MJC No.6/2008, by which respondent No.1, who is minor plaintiff, has been exempted from payment of Court-fee and has been

permitted to pursue the suit as an indigent person.

2. This Court, by interim order dated 18/5/2012, had stayed further

proceedings of civil suit. Record of trial Court has also been requisitioned.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are

that respondent No. 1/plaintiff, who is a minor, filed a suit for recovery of compensation of Rs.6,20,000/- as an indigent person alleging medical negligence against applicant and respondent No. 2. It is the case of minor

4. The applicant raised an objection to the application on the ground that father of plaintiff has a brick-klin and agricultural land and, therefore, he has sources to pay the Court-fee. The State also filed an inspection report as well as a Khasra Panchsala. Surprisingly, the inspection report was in respect of a complaint made by a local councillor that father of plaintiff is running a brick-klin in the middle of the Colony.

5. Be that whatever it may be, but one thing is clear that in that inspection report it was observed that on the land belonging to father of plaintiff, he is operating a brick-klin. The Khasra Panchsala was also filed to show that father of the plaintiff has certain pieces of land.

6. The trial Court came to a conclusion that the Panchnama was prepared behind the back of father of plaintiff and it was prepared without giving any notice to the father of plaintiff. Accordingly, it was held that the plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendants as an indigent person.

7. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that procedure for verification of application filed under Order 33 Rule 1, CPC and procedure under section 35 of the Stamp Act has not been followed and, therefore, the trial Court committed material illegality by permitting the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person.

8 . Per contra the revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents.

9. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

10. It is a case where applicant/defendant has shown complete inhuman attitude towards a minor plaintiff by alleging that income and property of guardian of minor plaintiff should be considered for adjudicating as to whether minor plaintiff is entitled to sue him as an indigent person or not? Accordingly, Shri Rohit Bansal was directed to point out any judgment to indicate that where the suit is filed by minor plaintiff, then the income of property of his/her guardian can be taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of Court-fee. It was fairly conceded by Shri Bansal that he has not brought any judgment in support of his contention.

11. Per contra it is submitted by Shri C.P.Singh, Advocate who was incidentally sitting in the Court that this Court in a judgment passed in the case of Kapil (minor) Vs. Dr. Shivmangal Awasthy reported in AIR 2001 MP 108 has held that income of guardian of minor plaintiff cannot be taken note of.

12. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kapil (Supra) has held as under:-

"