IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-7582-2025 (O&M) Decided on:-28.10.2025 Ajit Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS Maninder Singh and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ketan Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

CM-21579-CII-2025 This is an application for grant of leave to filing the present case without Number of Roll of Advocate.

Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

CR-7582-2025 (O&M)

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by the petitioner– defendant No.1 for setting aside the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar, whereby the application filed by the respondent–plaintiff seeking permission to sue as an indigent person under Order XXXIII CPC was allowed.

Brief Facts

2. The relevant facts are that the respondent No.1–plaintiff, Maninder Singh, a minor, through his mother and natural guardian Jagdeep Kaur, filed a suit for recovery of ₹16,80,000/- (including interest) and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner–defendant No.1, his grandmother, from alienating certain agricultural land. Along with the said suit, an application under Order 33 CPC seeking permission to sue as an indigent person was also filed. It was pleaded that pursuant to a compromise dated 28.07.2021, executed between the petitioner Ajit Kaur and Jagdeep Kaur, widow of late Lakhvir Singh (son of the petitioner), it was agreed that a total sum of ₹15,00,000/- would be paid to Jagdeep Kaur in two instalments i.e ₹5,00,000/- on 01.09.2021 and ₹10,00,000/- on 01.10.2021. It was further stipulated in the said compromise that the minor Maninder Singh would be treated as heir to the property of his deceased father after attaining majority, whereas the monetary consideration was to be received by Jagdeep Kaur.

3. In response, the present petitioner filed a detailed written statement and reply to the indigent application, contending that the respondent–plaintiff had no locus standi to institute the suit, as the cause of action, if any, accrued solely to Jagdeep Kaur under the compromise. It was further argued that the trial court had failed to appreciate that the applicant was not an indigent person, inasmuch as he and his mother were residing with her second husband, who cultivates 10–12 acres of land and pays ₹5,000/- monthly school fees for the child, thereby demonstrating adequate financial means. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed the application vide the impugned order dated 26.09.2025, observing that the applicant had no movable or immovable property or source of income, and that although Jagdeep Kaur’s husband and mother were earning, there was no evidence that the applicant derived income therefrom. The court also held that even though the applicant was not a signatory to the compromise, the same was executed for his benefit, and hence, a prima facie cause of action existed in his favour. Aggrieved, the present revision has been preferred.

Submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is illegal, perverse, and contrary to law, having been passed without due appreciation of pleadings and evidence. It is further the contention that the cause of action, if any, vested solely in Jagdeep Kaur, as the compromise specifically stipulated payment of ₹15 lakhs to her, and not to the minor respondent. Thus, the minor had no locus to institute a recovery suit. Reliance was placed on Order 33 Rule 5(d) CPC, which mandates rejection of an application where the allegations do not show a cause of action. The learned trial court failed to consider that the mother and guardian herself had sufficient means, as she is remarried, resides with her husband who owns and cultivates agricultural land, and pays the minor’s school fees in a con