This court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order denying leave to prosecute an appeal as pauperem inform pauperis. The court held the petitioner had sufficient means and dismissed the petition.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to pay court fees within three weeks.
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.
C.R.P.No.1614 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.10.2019
CORAM :
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
C.R.P.No.1614 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Balaji ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Nagai Sivasakthi Benefit Fund Ltd.,
Nagapattinam,
rep by its Managing Partner K.Ravi
No.20, Neela South Street,
Nagapattinam Town.
2.Rajamani Ammal
3.V.K.Varadarajan
4.Sairaj
5.Venkatesan
6.Renuka @ Rajalakshmi
7.Sasikala ... Respondents
(Subce R3, R5 to R7 remained exparte in the Court below, notice dispensed
with for them)
Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order passed in P.O.P.No.16 of 2011 dated 05.01.2012 on the file of the District Judge, Nagapattinam. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Palanisamy (R1) Mr.Dev Narendran, Government Advocate (CS) – vide order dated 13.09.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 / 5
C.R.P.No.1614 of 2012
O R D E R
Challenging the order passed in P.O.P.No.16 of 2011 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam, the petitioner, who is the 5th defendant in the suit in O.S.No.113 of 2002 has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2.The suit was filed by the plaintiff on the basis of an equitable
mortgage executed by the petitioner's father. The suit was decreed and as against the same, the revision petitioner filed an un-numbered appeal before the District Court, Nagapattinam. In the appeal, the petitioner filed a petition in P.O.P.No.16 of 2011 to declare him as an indigent person and to permit him to prosecute the appeal as informa pauperis . In the affidavit filed in support
of the petition, the petitioner has stated that he is working as an acting driver and earning a meager amount of Rs.2,000/- per month. Further, he has stated that he does not own any movable or immovable property on his own and he
has not sold any properties before three months time. Further, the petitioner
has stated that he is not having sufficient means to pay the court fees of
Rs.90,110/- to prosecute the appeal. The plaintiff filed the counter wherein it has been stated that the petitioner owns a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 51 B 5163, worth about Rs.40,000/-. Further, it has been
stated that the respondents 2 to 7 are the legal representatives of Veeraraghavalu Naidu, who borrowed loan and created mortgage. Further, it
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 / 5
C.R.P.No.1614 of 2012
has been stated that the petitioner is entitled to 1/7th share in the property. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both parties, dismissed the petition finding that the petitioner has got sufficient means to pay the court fees. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the above Civil
Revision Petition.
3.Since the matter is relating to the payment of court fees, notice was served on the learned Government Advocate (CS) and the learned Government Advocate also filed a report of the Tahsildar, Nagapattinam dated 17.10.2019 wherein he has stated that the petitioner is residing in a terraced house property along with his mother Tmt.Rajamani and the value of the property is about Rs.50 lakhs. Further, the Tahsildar has stated that the petitioner is owning a Tata Sumo vehicle and is doing Travels business.
4.Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the property, which is referred to in the report of the Tahsildar, is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.113 of 2002. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the Tata Sumo car was purchased subsequent to the filing of the Pauper O.P.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 / 5
C.R.P.No.1614 of 2012
5.When the petitioner has got means to purchase a car, he cannot be termed as a pauper. On a perusal of the Registration Certificate produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that even the hypothecation
agreement endorsement made in the R.C. Book was cancelled on 06.12.2017. Therefore, there is no encumbrance on the vehicle as of today. In view of the report filed by the Tahsildar, Nagapattinam and also on perusing the Registration Certificate produced by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has got sufficient means to pay the court fees and the Lower Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the petition. I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay the court fees within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No 18.10.2019 va To
The District Judge, Nagapattinam.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 / 5
C.R.P.No.1614 of 2012
M. DURAISWAMY,J.
va
C.R.P.No.1614 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
18.10.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 5 / 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to litigate as an indigent person given his claimed low earnings and lack of assets.
Whether the petitioner has sufficient means to pay court fees in light of his remuneration and property holdings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balaji
Nagai Sivasakthi Benefit Fund Ltd. rep. by K.Ravi
Rajamani Ammal
V.K.Varadarajan
Sairaj
Venkatesan
M.Duraismamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
