106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.02.2026 PARMOD ......... Petitioner VERSUS VIKRANT GOSWAMI ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. S.S. Nain, Advocate and Ms. Tanya Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

CM-2463-CII-2026 This is an application under Section 151 of CPC to prepone the main case, which is fixed for 28.04.2026.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the main case is taken on board today itself.

CM-2464-CII-2026 The applicant-petitioner through instant application under Section 151 of CPC is seeking permission to place on record Allowed as prayed for.

to all just exceptions.

1. The present revision petition has been instituted against the order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonipat whereby, the application moved by the petitioner seeking permission to institute the appeal as an indigent person has been rejected and he has been directed to deposit the requisite court fee.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

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

“Heard on the application under Order 44 of Code of Civil Procedure for exempting the appellant from paying the requisite court fee. It is pleaded that he is an indigent person and falls in the category of below poverty line.

In the reply respondent has denied the contents and pleaded that the applicant alienated two acres land, which he received from his father. He is director of a company named The Great Growth Dreams Ltd. In the present case also inter-alia he has received consideration amount and owns the suit property, so there is no ground to consider him indigent person.

Heard. This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed in the suit for specific performance of agreement by which the defendant agreed to sell his land. As per the averments made in the plaint, the defendant-appellant had received Rs. 12,70,000/- as earnest money i.e Rs. 7,40,000/- by way of cheque and Rs. 5,30,000/- by way of cash. Having regard to attending facts and circumstances, I am unable to accept the plea of the defendant-appellant, applicant herein, as indigent person and his incapacity to pay the court fee. Hence the application is dismissed summarily. Final and last opportunity is granted to appellant to deposit the requisite court fee on 15.01.2026, failing which this appeal shall be dismissed on this score only.”

4. The present suit for specific performance of the agreement was instituted in which a decree for specific performance has been passed. The said judgment and decree dated 14.05.2025 has been challenged by the appellant in which he has sought permission to sue as an indigent person. However, the learned Appellate Court has observed that petitioner had alienated two acres of land received by him from his father. He is also a Director in a company. He has also received sale consideration and owns the suit property and petitioner is thus not an indigent person. In my considered opinion, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as petitioner owns sufficient means to pay the court fees. No interference in the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 is called for and the petition in hand is ordered to be dismissed.

5. Pending misc application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)

JUDGE

13.02.2026

Priyanka Thakur

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No