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

th

ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 1089 of 2026 ANAND MOHAN AND OTHERS Versus RAJESH ANVEKAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Hemant Kumar Namdeo - Advocate for the petitioners.

ORDER The present petitioner has been filed challenging the order dated 05-

12-2025 passed by the appellate court, whereby the Appellate court has rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 44 Rule 1 C.P.C. to sue as indigent person.

2. There is a decree of specific performance of contract against the present petitioner in relation to an agreement to sale stated to be executed in year 2013. That agreement has a recital of payment of consideration of Rs.

30.00 lakhs as against the agreed consideration of Rs. 33.00 lakhs.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the appellate court has not considered the position that there is a recital of transaction of huge amount of cash in the agreement in question, which has to be looked upon with suspicion and it could not be inferred that the petitioners had received this much amount of money in the year 2013 so as to infer that they are having means to pay the court fees. It is further argued that even the plaintiff before the trial court had admitted that the land in question was valued between 8 to 10 lakhs per acre at the relevant point of time, but the agreement in question is only for a value of Rs. 3.00 lakhs per acre. Therefore, it is argued that on one hand there is a highly suspicious agreement, which is for the consideration of 30% of the market value even as per admission of the plaintiff, still the suit has been decreed against the petitioners and on the other hand they are being put to additional jeopardy by having to pay Rs. 1.50 lakhs on appeal on against such judgment.

3. The counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the son of one of the appellants is a cancer patient requiring constant medical treatment and care and whatever small earnings are there from the land in question which may be to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per year are consumed in treatment and the petitioners are under heavy debt on account of such treatment of son of one of the petitioners. However, he admits that such documents have not been placed on record before this court relating to the treatment of son of the petitioner.

4. Heard.

5. There is a decree of specific performance against the petitioners and the petitioners have filed appeal under Section 96 along with an application to sue as indigent person. The petitioners had submitted in the application under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC that they have two sets of clothes, one old motor cycle having present value around Rs. 10,000/- and some bed linen and apart from that, they are having no other movable property.

6. As per the report of the revenue officer filed before the Appellate Court, the revenue officer verified that the petitioners are residing in a house constructed on the land of some other person and they are working as "halwai" whenever they receive booking for the said purpose. They are having immovable property in the shape of the land, but the same land that land is subject matter of the suit.

7. Therefore from a perusal of the report of Revenue Officer, it is seen that no further property of the petitioners seems to have been found out by the revenue officer, other than what had been disclosed in the application.

8. The appellate court has rejected the application, noting that the application is not in proper format as per Order 33 Rule 2, CPC and the petitioners have failed to correct the format of the application, despite objection of the respondent/plaintiff. The trial court has also considered the evidence recorded before it that the petitioners receive Rs. 40,000-45,000/- per annum from income from the land in question and they are having television and cooler in their home, apart from android mobile costing about Rs. 4,000/-, which was st