1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

CIVIL PETITION No.154 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

MALLARADHYA

S/O BASAVARADHYA

AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS

R/AT: AGARA VILLAGE

YELANDUR TALUK

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

PIN 571 313.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI.G.BALAKRISHNA SHASHRY, ADV.)

AND:

L.PRAKASH

S/O LATE LAKSHMI NARAYANA

AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS,

R/AT: NO.22/210, 2ND CROSS,

BRAMARAMBHA EXTENSION,

CHAMARAJANAGAR 571 313.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.B.S.MAHENDRA AND

SRI.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATES)

THIS C.P. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 44 RULE 1 OF CPC

PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO THE PETITIONER TO PREFER

AND PROSECUTE RFA NO.1986/2016 PREFERRED BY THE

PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT CHALLENGING THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:02/09/2016 IN O.S.NO.164/2014

ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM,

CHAMARAJANAGARA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS C.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

2

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present Civil Petition under

Order 44 Rule 1 CPC seeking permission to prosecute RFA

No.1986/2016 as an indigent person.

2.

The brief facts giving rise to the petition are as

follows:

The respondent was the plaintiff in O.S.No.164/2014

filed by him against the petitioner-defendant for recovery of

arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.11,22,375/- from the

petitioner. In the said suit, it was the specific contention of

the respondent that he was the land lord of the suit

schedule premises and that since the petitioner had not

paid arrears of rent in the aforesaid sum of Rs.11,22,375/-,

the said suit was filed by the respondent against the

petitioner for recovery of the said sum and for other reliefs.

3.

The petitioner contested the said suit. By its

judgment and decree dated 02.09.2016, the trial Court

decreed the suit in favour of the respondent against the

petitioner thereby directing the petitioner to pay a sum of

3

Rs.11,22,375/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the

date of suit till realization to the respondent.

4.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree

passed in O.S.No.164/2014, petitioner has preferred RFA

No.1986/2016 before this Court. In this context, the

petitioner has valued the subject matter of the said appeal

as that in the trial Court and has computed a Court fee of

Rs.73,295/- payable by him on the Memorandum of

Appeal. Putting forth the specific contention that the

petitioner does not have sufficient means to pay the

aforesaid sum of Rs.73,295/- towards Court fee on the

Memorandum of Appeal, petitioner has filed the present

petition seeking permission to prosecute the aforesaid RFA

No.1986/2016 informa pauperis as an indigent person. In

support of his contention, the petitioner has stated that he

is a coolie with an unemployed wife and a minor son as

well as an aged mother and they do not have sufficient

means to pay the Court fee payable on the appeal.

5.

The respondent has opposed the petition and

contended that the petitioner is not an indigent person and

4

that he has sufficient means to pay Court fee. It is

contended that the petitioner and his mother jointly possess

29 guntas of agricultural land, which was an ancestral

property as well an ancestral residential house in addition

to gold and other income. It is also contended that in

another suit in O.S.No.173/2014 filed by the respondent

against the petitioner for his eviction from the schedule

premises, petitioner had put forth a counter claim for

Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondent and had paid Court

fee of Rs.62,125/- on the same. The said counter claim

having been decreed in favour of the petitioner, execution

proceedings have been initiated by him for recovery of the

decreetal amount from the respondent. It is therefore

contended that the petitioner is not an indigent person and

he has sufficient means and the