IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 6880 of 2025 RAJNEESH KUMAR AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Aditya Ahiwasi - Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Mukund Agrawal - Government Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

Shri Surendra Patel - Advocate for the Respondent No.5.

ORDER By way of the present Petition, challenge is made to the Order dated

05.08.2024 passed by the Trial Court whereby the Trial Court has considered the application to sue as indigent person under Order 33 Rule 2 of C.P.C and decided the same without issuing notice to the defendants but only after hearing the State and after issuing notice to the Revenue authorities.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has raised a singular contention that the enquiry which was carried out in absence of the Petitioner/defendant was an incomplete enquiry because certain properties in the name of the Plaintiff which he had purchased by sale deeds which have now been placed on record before this Court were suppressed by him in his application to sue as indigent person which include one property of the Plaintiff and one property of the wife of Plaintiff, one of which is in District Hoshangabad and other in District Sehore.

3. Though the said assertion has been denied by the Plaintiff by filing reply before this Court that the said properties had been disposed off and now in the Revenue records the name of the vendors are available. However, the Petitioner has raised an objection that if the properties had been disposed off then the sale consideration must have been available with the plaintiff and therefore, a proper enquiry ought to have been carried out by the Trial Court as to whether on the date of presentation of Plaint in the year 2019, any movable or immovable property were available with the Plaintiff.

4. Upon hearing the rival parties, the sole question that arises before this Court is whether the application to sue as indigent person could have been allowed in absence of the other side and without issuing notice to the other side by issuing notice only to the State. The said issue has been considered in detail by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in M.P.No.4632/2024 (Indore) in the following manner:-

"7. Order XXXIII of CPC provides for Suits by indigent persons as under:-

1. Suits may be instituted by indigent persons.—

Subject to the following provisions, any suit may be instituted by an indigent person.

Explanation 1.—A person is an indigent person, —

1. 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

2. 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.

4. Examination of applicant.—

(1) Where the application is in proper form and duly presented, the Court may, if it thinks fit