The Kerala High Court reviewed a judgment dismissing a review petition filed to cure defects in a petition for leave to sue as an indigent person for recovery of money.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931
RP.No. 615 OF 2009()
REVIEW PETITIONER/ APPELLANT
D.RAJENDRAN, SREE NIVAS, THEKKEVILA, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT
KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CASHEW HOUSE, P.B.NO.13, KOLLAM.
SRI. C. UNNIKRISHNAN, S.C. FOR KSCDC LTD.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NO. 615/2009 IN F.A.O. 235/2004
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2009.
O R D E R
Raman, J.
Appeal was against an order dismissing the application for permission to sue as an indigent person. The suit was one for recovery of money. It was contended that the appellant/petitioner has no means to pay the court fee of Rs. 1,29,420/-. We perused the order of the court below and by judgment dated 1st June, 2009, the appeal was dismissed on merits. The court below found that in cross examination, the appellant/petitioner himself admitted that he was residing in a rented house and there were some movables, details of which were not disclosed in the petition and hence the requirement as contemplated by the rule was not satisfied. There was also some evidence to show that petitioner has some business and income therefrom. This, however, was not shown or disclosed in the petition. It was appreciating the above facts, that the court below dismissed the petition. The suit is of the year 1999. No grounds were made out to interfere with the finding reached by the court below and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
RP 615/2009 :2:
not bring to the notice of the court certain aspects. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/review petitioner. According to him, the fact that there was some defect in the petition may not entail in total dismissal of the case, rather he sought for an opportunity to amend the petition curing the defect. It is too late to seek for such a prayer. The appellant could have done so by making such a request by filing an appropriate petition before the court below. At this belated stage we do not think that the petitioner could be given such an opportunity. Further, as contemplated by the rules when all the facts are not brought out and disclosed in the schedule, the application is liable to be dismissed, which alone has been doe. As a matter of fact, this was not rejected at the admission stage; but opportunity was given to adduce evidence and it is only after considering the materials placed on record, that the petition was dismissed. If so, we find no ground to review the judgment rendered.
Dismissed.
P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
KNC/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether belated request to amend the petition curing defects was a ground for granting a review of the order dismissing the application for leave to sue.
Whether the requirement to disclose assets and income in the petition satisfied the rule for permission to sue as an indigent person.
D. Rajendran
Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd.
P.R. Raman
P. Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
