IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-448-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 19.01.2026 AKHILESH SHARMA AND OTHERS ....PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Praveen Kumar, DAG Haryana.

*****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bawal (Annexure P-7), vide which the application moved by the plaintiffs/revisionists seeking permission to sue as indigent persons has been declined.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is manifestly illegal as petitioners do not have sufficient means to pay the ad valorem Court fees. Learned counsel next contended that the expression “Sufficient Means”, in Order 33 CPC does not include (i) property which is exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and (ii) the subject-matter of the suit. Learned counsel further contended that the property which the applicant possess of which is not liable to attachment in execution of decree is not to be reckoned for the purpose of determining whether they have sufficient means to pay the Court fees or not, and impugned order is thus liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel has cited 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 181 State of Haryana and Another Vs. Baldev Raj and Another, 1983(2) ILR (Punjab) 129 Shanti Devi and Others Vs. Dharam Pal and Others, 1993(3) RRR 202 Miss Baljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, and 2019 (1) PLR 708 Naveen Gulati Vs.

Sanjeev Kumar and Another

4. However, I do not find any force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and petition in hand is liable to be dismissed for the reasons discussed hereinafter.

5. Before proceeding further, the impugned order is reproduced as under:-

“ Arguments heard on application filed under Order 33 Rule 1, 2 and 4 read with Section 151 CPC.

Learned counsel for applicants-petitioners has argued that applicant is indigent and therefore he be allowed to proceed in the suit accordingly. Learned counsel for applicants-petitioners placed their reliance on Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya Vs. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi and others, 2024(3) RCR (Civil) 190 (SC).

File perused. The present suit is filed for recovery of damages of Rs.50,00,000/- from defendants. Report of concerned Revenue Official received in which it is mentioned that land measuring 10 Kanal is registered in the name of deceased and they were also having tractor and motorcycle. When land is recorded in the name of deceased and it appears that being Class-I legal heir of deceased, applicants-petitioners are entitled to inherit the same and it is an agricultural land which shows applicants are not indigent. Finding of Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya’s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case as facts are different. As per report of concerned Revenue Official, applicants are not covered in the definition of indigent. Hence, application in hand is hereby dismissed.

Now to come upon 09.01.2026 for filing ad valorem Court fees by applicants.”

6. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the petitioners owned 10 Kanals of land which was registered in the name of deceased as well as tractor and motorcycle as reported by the concerned Revenue Official and as such, they have sufficient means to pay the Court fees and they are not indigent persons. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the revisionists is not at all applicable to the facts of the case in hand as in Shanti Devi’s case (supra) the plaintiffs/petitioners were agricultural labourers and their earnings were exempt from attachment. The agriculture produce is also exempt from attachment, in view of proviso (B)(ii) to Section 60 of Code of Civil Procedure, whereas