First appeal against rejection of indigent petition under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC. High Court held lower court erred in assuming sufficient means based on past transactions and prior litigation. Appeal allowed; indigent permission granted.
Impugned order set aside; petitioner permitted to sue as indigent. Appointment fixed for proceedings.
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 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/14TH SRAVANA, 1937
FAO.No. 70 of 2015 () ---------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN POP 74/2008 of I ADDL SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 06-11-2014
APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------
T.D. ANTONY @ ANTHONY AGED 47 YEARS S/O.DEVASSY, THAROOKKARA HOUSE, POOTHOLE THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------
K.A RAVEENDRA KUMAR, S/O.AYYAPPAN KALATHIL HOUSE, THOPPANS ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM THRISSUR 680 001.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) BY ADV. SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.07.2015, THE COURT ON 05.08.2015 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & SUNIL THOMAS, JJ.
============================== F.A.O.No.70 of 2015
==============================
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2015
JUDGMENT
Sunil Thomas, J.
The petitioner, aggrieved by the rejection of his application P.O.P.No.74 of 2008, seeking permission to sue as an indigent person, is the appellant herein.
F.A.O.70/15
2
seeking permission to institute the suit. This order is assailed in this appeal.
F.A.O.70/15
3
lost his job. Thereafter, he was employed in a photostat shop on a part time basis. Petitioner had deposed that he did not get enough salary from that shop. His children were studying and their entire expenses were met by him. It has also come out in evidence that the court fee payable in the connected suit O.S.No.882 of 2007 was remitted by the co-plaintiff. Hence, the finding of the court below that petitioner had remitted the court fee is not correct. It has also come out in evidence that he had sold his property and obtained a sum of Rs.35,50,000/-. However his evidence in Ext.B3 shows that inclusive of that amount, a total sum of Rs.71,00,000/- was allegedly advanced by him to respondent herein for which another litigation is pending. These transactions took place prior to the institution of the present case. It is on record that petitioner has got involved in few transactions involving huge amounts and that, he himself has got entangled in various litigations.
F.A.O.70/15
4
the suit.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and P.O.P.No.74 of 2008 stands allowed. Petitioner is permitted to sue as an indigent person. Both sides shall appear before the court below on 03.09.2015. The court below shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge
SUNIL THOMAS Judge
Sbna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner had sufficient means to pay court fee at the time of suing despite evidence of large financial transactions and prior litigation.
Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the indigent petition based on alleged employment in a photostat shop and past investments.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T.D. Antony @ Anthony
K.A Raveendra Kumar
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
