IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 1588 of 2026 SHRI PRAKASH CHAND Versus RADHA VALLABH KABRA SONS PIPARIYA THROUGH SHRI SHRINIWAS KABRA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rahul Khare - Advocate through VC for the petitioner.

ORDER The present petition is filed assailing the order date 22-12-2025 passed in MJC No.19/2025 by the First District Judge, Piparia, District Narmadapuram.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that being aggrieved by an order date 13-

05-2025 passed by the Learned Trial Court in Case No. 1B of 2017, he has preferred an appeal under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC and under Section 151 of CPC and the appeal is pending consideration before the Learned First District Judge, Piparia. Petitioner is an indigent person with no tangible source of income. He is dependent upon the income of his children for his livelihood. He preferred an appeal along with an application for waiver of court fees of Rs.88,000/-. The Learned First District Judge, Piparia passed an order on 2-12-2025 dismissing the application filed under Section 151 of CPC and ordering for a report for financial status of the petition. In pursuance to the same, the report was prepared and placed before the Court below for consideration by the Tehsildar Piparia. It is his case that the report highlighted the fact that petitioner along with his brother are joint owner of the land parcel upon which their common house is situated at Kasara No. 176, Plot No. 35 which is measuring 995 sq. ft. in size. The report was filed on 18-12-2025. Another report was presented on 19-12-2025 incorporating the dimensions and valuation of the land parcel jointly with the petitioner along with his brother, pointing out the cost of the land to be Rs. 49,00,910/-. The First District Judge, considering the aforesaid report, dismissed the application under Order 44 Rule 1 of CPC disregarding the financial status of the petitioner and ordered for deposition of court fees.

3. It is argued that the learned First District Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner had no disposable assets movable or immovable, as well as the fact that he is completely dependent upon his children for his livelihood. The petitioner is not having any other source of livelihood. The house, situated at Khasra No. 176, Plot No. 35, is a dwelling place of brother of the petitioner and his family. The petitioner is residing with his brother. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner to pursue the appeal as an indigent person should have been allowed. Therefore, this petition is filed.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. The report indicates that the learned District Judge, after considering the report submitted by the Tehsildar with respect to the financial status of the petitioner, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The report submitted by the Tehsildar shows that the petitioner is a joint owner of the property along with his brother. A dwelling house admeasuring 995 Sq. Ft. at Khasra No. 176, Plot No. 35 is situated and the value of the same is Rs.49,00,910/-. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be an indigent person. The relevant extract of the report of the Tehsildar is as under :-

"अतः उ(cid:5) संबंध म(cid:11) म(cid:11) ह(cid:13)का पटवार(cid:20) से जांच (cid:24)ितवेदन आहुत (cid:30)कया गया। ह(cid:13)का पटवार(cid:20) ने अपने (cid:24)ितवेदन म(cid:11) (cid:24)ितवे(cid:30)दत (cid:30)कया है (cid:30)क देवगांव (cid:35)पप(cid:36)रया म(cid:11) प(cid:36)रवितत(cid:37) भूिम खसरा न. 176 (cid:42)लाट न(cid:44)बर 35 (cid:45)कवा 995 वगफ(cid:37) ुट (cid:24)काशचंद (cid:35)पता तराचंद साहू चं(cid:48)भान (cid:35)पता तराचंद साहू के नाम दज (cid:37) है। मौके पर मकान बना है (cid:50)जसम(cid:11) चं(cid:48)भान साहू एवं (cid:24)काश चंद साहू सयु(cid:5) (cid:52)प से िनवासरत है। (cid:24)काशचंद साहू क(cid:53) प(cid:54)ी एक पू(cid:56) हर(cid:20)(cid:50)(cid:57)त साहू एवं एक पु