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

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 37 of 2026 SANJEEV SARKAR Versus SMT CHATURIYA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Om Prakash Tiwari- Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri K.K. Gautam Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 08-12-2025, passed by the Appellate Court whereby the Appellate Court has rejected the application to sue the appeal as an indigent person filed under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC, and directed the petitioner to pay court fees.

2. This plaintiff/petitioner was the plaintiff before the trial Court and he had filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the assertion that there was an agreement to sale the suit land for the consideration of Rs. 2,40,000/- and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been paid in advance and the plaintiff was ready and willing to execute the sale deed but the defendant did not execute the sale deed.

3. The trial court rejected the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27.08.2024 against which the plaintiff has filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Court under Section 96, CPC and along with the appeal an application under Order 44, Rule 1, was filed seeking to sue as indigent person in the appeal.

4. The Appellate Court has rejected the application on the ground that the court fees payable is Rs. 28,950/- which the petitioner/plaintiff had duly paid before the trial court but now is avoiding to pay before the Appellate Court. The trial court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner/ plaintiff has two bank loans and has one bank fixed deposit and various other bank accounts, though it is contended by him that there are no deposits in the bank accounts and the FD is also of a very less amount.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has argued before the court that the Appellate Court ought not to have dismissed the application without calling for report of the Revenue Officer and when the application filed by the petitioner did not disclose any assets indicating that he is having means to pay court fees of Rs. 28,940/-, therefore the Appellate Court itself could not have rejected the application and should have called for the report of the Revenue Officer. Therefore, it is contended that no proper inquiry has been conducted before rejecting the application to sue as indigent person.

6. Upon considering the aforesaid assertion, it is seen that the petitioner is the plaintiff in suit for specific performance and he has approached the trial court with the assertion that there was an agreement to sale for Rs. 2.40 lakh out of which Rs.40,000/- was paid in advance. He had pleaded readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed and after having expressed readiness and willingness to pay an amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to the vendor, the application to sue as an indigent person to avoid payment of court fees of Rs.28,950/- does not seem to be an application filed bona fidely by the petitioner.

7. If the petitioner/plaintiff is having means to pay Rs. 2.00 lakhs as balance consideration to the defendant and he even wishes to prosecute the appeal wherein he is praying that sale deed be got executed by the defendant after taking balance consideration of Rs.2.00 lakhs, then, in the same breath, he cannot state that he does not have the means to pay court fees of Rs. 28,950/-.

8. Even the appellate court has duly considered the position that he has one loan account in Axis bank, another loan account in Bajaj Finance from where he has taken outstanding loan of Rs.1.15 lakhs and Rs. 60,000 respectively. He is having accounts in HDFC Bank, State Bank of India and Bank of Baroda, but projects to have very less balance in the accounts. 9. The appellate court has duly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is having financial transactions in a number of bank accounts and loan accounts and therefore, looking to totality of