Allowed

Mu. Dokeshwari @ Daleshwari v. Dinesh Kumar Agrawal

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2023MCC/959/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant's application under Order 44 Rule 1 of CPC, permitting her to file the appeal as an indigent person due to inability to pay court fees, and directed registry to list the matter for admission.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant permitted to prefer appeal as indigent person; registry directed to register as First Appeal and list for admission.

Mu. Dokeshwari @ Daleshwari Vs Dinesh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.C.C. No. 959 of 2017

¶5

Mu. Dokeshwari @ Daleshwari W/o Jagdish Prasad Sao, Aged About 67 Years Caste Teli (Sao) R/o Near Mission School, Boerdadr Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Defendant No.1

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Dinesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Mahavir Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 58 Years Occupation Business, R/o Near Main Hospital Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Non-applicants

¶11

For Applicant: Shri Avinash Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant No.1: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For State/Non-Applicant No.2: Shri Trivikram Nayak, Panel Lawyer.

¶12

D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri &

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J

¶16

08.08.2023

¶17

Heard on an application filed under Order 44 Rule 1 of CPC praying for filing of this appeal as an indigent person.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/defendant No.1, while furnishing the particulars of the property held by her (defendant No.1) vide Schedule 'A', submits that she is not in a position to pay the Court fee as required under the Court Fees Act for this appeal, and therefore, she may be permitted to pursue this appeal as an indigent person.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant No.1/plaintiff has opposed the said application.

¶20

¶21

It appears from perusal of the earlier order sheet dated 20.07.2022 that the State Government was directed to place on record the financial status report of the applicant, but till date no report as such was produced. In view thereof, the contents made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, it appears that defendant No.1/applicant is not in a position to pay the Court fee as required under the Court Fees Act for preferring this appeal. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this application.

¶22

The said application is accordingly allowed and the applicant is hereby permitted to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No.A/128/2009 as an indigent person.

¶23

Registry is directed to register the case as a regular First Appeal and list the matter thereafter for admission.

¶24

M.C.C. is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

Sd/Sd/-

¶26

(Goutam Bhaduri) (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶27

Nikita

Mu. Dokeshwari @ Daleshwari v. Dinesh Kumar Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mu. Dokeshwari @ Daleshwari v. Dinesh Kumar Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thakur Prasad Sao and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nitesh Bhai Patel

Smt. Anju Agrawal Vs Bhupesh Kumar Agrawal

Sampatti @ Soni Vs Ballu Chaudhary

Smt. Geeta Kewat Vs Pankaj Kewat

Vinay Agrawal Vs Moolchand

(Deleted) Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs Rakesh Kumar Agrawal