IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD Between:

B.Chenna Krishna Reddy ...Petitioner AND The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Kongarakalan, Thukkuguda, Ranga Reddy District and two others.

...Respondents Mr.A.Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order 13.11.2025 passed by the learned XV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District (‘Trial Court’) dismissing I.A.No.195 of 2025 in O.S.SR.No.418 of 2025 filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), seeking exemption of Court fee of Rs.1,44,526/- in the Suit.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for recovery of amount of Rs.1,42,08,236/-. The impugned order records that the petitioner failed to establish the conditions under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the CPC for institution of the Suit as an indigent person. The Trial Court also came to the specific finding on the material placed before it that the petitioner is financially well-established and owns substantial immovable properties and is also running educational institutions. The Trial Court hence concluded that the petitioner disclosed large properties and also the capacity to incur repair expenses running into crores, which negates the claim of inability to pay the requisite Court fee.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the Court fee after the decree is passed.

4. This Court does not find any substance in the aforesaid contentions since Order XXXIII of the CPC enables the Suits by indigent persons and under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the CPC outlines that the Suits may be instituted by indigent persons and the Explanation-I defines an indigent person based on two criterias i.e., (a) Where the person does not possess sufficient means (excluding property exempt from attachment and the subject matter of the Suit) to pay the required Court fee and (b) Where no fee is prescribed, the person is not entitled to property worth One Thousand Rupees (excluding property exempt from attachment and the subject matter of the Suit). Since the Trial Court came to the specific finding on the relevant material placed before the Court that the petitioner does not fall into the definition of the indigent person and having himself disclosed ownership of large properties and the capacity to incur repair expenses running into crores of rupees, this Court does not find any reason to interfere or to set aside the impugned order.

5. C.R.P.No.431 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J