Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - JAIPUR BEN
RAM LAL SAINI – Appellant
Versus
RAJ BRIDGE AND CONSTRUCTION – Respondent
CPA 1/2004
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a contractor, filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondent, Rajasthan Bridge and Construction Corporation Ltd. The suit was valued at Rs. 5,74,712.65 and the appellant paid the required court fee in the trial court. The appellant also received the amount of first and second bills and part payment of the third bill.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim of being an indigent person. The court also noted that the appellant had received a substantial amount of money from the respondent and that the value of his property had likely increased since the time of filing the suit.
Issues: Whether the appellant was an indigent person and entitled to file the appeal as a pauper.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not an indigent person and was not entitled to file the appeal as a pauper. The court noted that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim of being an indigent person and that he had received a substantial amount of money from the respondent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's pauper application and the appeal.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Pauper Application No. 1/2004
In
S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 88/2004
Ram Lal Saini, Contractor, S/o Shri Ramdev Saini, R/o Laxmi
Narainpuri, Shriram Colony, Outside Surajpole Gate, Jaipur
----Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Rajasthan Bridge And Construction Corpn. Ltd., Setu Bhawan,
Opposite Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur-Agra Bye-Pass, Jaipur-302
004, Through Its Chairman
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 88/2004
Ram Lal Saini, Contractor S/o Shri Ramdev Saini,
Laxminarainpuri, Shriram Colony, Outside Surajpole Gate, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Bridge And Construction Corporation Ltd., Sethu
Bhawan, Opp. Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur-Agra Byepass, Jaipur-
302004 through its Chairman
----Respondent
For Appellant-
applicant
:
Mr. Alok Garg, Advocate (through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
12/01/2022
Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the delay of 47
days in filing the pauper application is condoned.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
valuation of the suit was Rs. 5,74,712.65 and thereon Court fee of
Rs. 28,805/- is required to be paid, but the applicant is an
(2 of 2)
[CPA-1/2004]
indigent person, therefore, he is unable to pay the court fee.
Except a plot of 188 Sq. yards, which was also mortgaged with
Jaipur Cooperative Bank Ltd., no other immovable property is
owned and possessed by the applicant. The applicant is living in a
rented house. Hence, the application be allowed, the applicant be
declared as indigenous person and the appeal filed by the
applicant-appellant may be treated as regularly filed appeal.
Heard. Considered.
As per the averments made in the application, which
was filed in the year 2004, the applicant had a house admeasuring
188 sq. yards, the price of which must have been escalated during
the past 17 years. Even otherwise, as per the averments made in
the application, the suit was valued at Rs. 5,74,712.65 and
thereon Court fee of Rs. 28,805/- is required to be paid, whereas
the plaintiff, who is a Contractor, filed the suit for recovery of
money and paid the Court fee in the trial court and as per his own
statement recorded as PW-1, he received the amount of first and
second bills and also received the part payment of third bill i.e. Rs.
22,067/-.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this pauper
application and the same being bereft of any merit is liable to be
dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Consequent upon the dismissal of the pauper
application and due to non payment of required Court Fees, the
Civil First Appeal does not survive and the same also stands
dismissed accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
Dk/26-27
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
