Dismissal Of Plaintiff’s Application To File Suit As Indigent Person Won’t Bar Him From Seeking Permission To File Appeal As Indigent Person

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

The Supreme Court has ruled that a person is not barred from claiming exemption from paying court fees before the High Court under Order 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 on account of being an indigent person, merely because such a claim under the corresponding provision of Order 33, CPC was rejected by the Trial Court.

The Division Bench of Justices AM Sapre and Indu Malhotra made the observation while allowing an appeal against a Kerala High Court judgment which had rejected the appellant’s claim for such exemption.
The appellant had initially claimed this exemption claim while initiating a civil suit to recover over Rs 74 crores in 1996 before and Additional Sub-Judge in Thiruvanathapuram. Given the value of his suit, the plaintiff had been expected to pay over Rs 3 lakhs as court fee. He filed the suit under Order 33 of the CPC, which exempts indigent persons from paying court fees that they are unable to afford given their economic status.

However, the respondents/defendants disputed the appellant’s claims of being unable to afford the court fee. The Trial Court, in 1998, rejected the claim that he was an indigent person.

In 2000, the Kerala High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the Trial Court’s rejection of his Order 33 suit and directed that he will have to pay the applicable ad valorem court fees for his plaint within a month. The appellant, therefore, converted his case into a regular original suit before the Trial Court and also proceeded to file another related civil suit. After clubbing both suits together, the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s case in 2011. In appealing against this verdict before the High Court, the appellant again claimed that he would not be able to pay the court fees applicable on his appeal as an indigent person. He submitted that his financial condition had worsened following the Trial Court verdict. Therefore, he claimed that he could not afford the court fee on the appeal. Accordingly, he filed his appeal under Order 44, CPC, which allows exemption from payment of court fees on appeals by indigent persons. However, the High Court rejected his exemption claim, this time in view of the fact that his earlier claim to file the Order 33 suit had been rejected by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.

The Supreme Court has now clarified that the High Court’s approach in the matter was erroneous. The Bench noted that at every appellate stage the exemption claim is made, the concerned Court will have to independently inquire whether the claimant, on facts, is entitled to be treated as an indigent person and, therefore, be allowed exemption from payment of court fees. “Though the appellant (plaintiff) was not allowed by the Trial Court/High Court in the earlier round of litigation to institute a suit as an indigent person under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code, yet in our considered opinion, he was entitled to file an application/appeal under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code and seek permission from the Appellate Court to allow him to file an appeal as an indigent person.

In their view, the dismissal of an application made under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code by the Trial Court in the earlier round of litigation is not a bar against the plaintiff to file an application/appeal under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code before the Appellate Court. The grant and rejection of such prayer by the Trial Court are confined only up to the disposal of the suit. This is clear from the reading of Rule 3(1) and 3(2) of Order 44, which contemplate holding of inquiry again into the question at the appellate stage as to whether the applicant is an indigent person or not since the date from the decree appealed from.“

Therefore, the Court concluded by saying that: “We cannot, therefore, concur with the view taken by the High Court because the High Court did not hold an inquiry as contemplated under Order 44 Rule 3(2) of the Code and dismissed the appellant’s application made under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code mainly on the ground that since the appellant was declined permission to institute the suit as an indigent person by the Trial Court in the earlier round and such rejection having been upheld by the High Court in appeal, he cannot be permitted to file an application/appeal under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code as an indigent person in appeal.

In their view, this reasoning of the High Court is not in conformity with the Order 33 read with Order 44 and hence cannot be upheld

Fortunately, the matter was remanded back to the High Court with directions to hold an independent inquiry into whether the appellant is eligible to claim the status of an indigent person under Order 44 and decide on the same preferably within 6 months. However, since the appellant was not allowed to file his trial court suit as an indigent person, the Court also ordered that it be verified whether he paid the appropriate court fee for his trial court suits.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -