Allowed

D.Gunasekaran v. P.Sankaranarayanan

Madras HC15 Oct 2020CRP/2612/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Revision Petition, the Madras High Court held that the Trial Court acted materially irregular by granting permission to sue as an indigent person without serving notice on the Government Pleader, violating a mandatory provision of Order 33 Rule 6 of C.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order allowing the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person was set aside and the matter remitted to the Trial Court to issue notice to the Government Pleader.

D.Gunasekaran Vs P.Sankaranarayanan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P(PD).No. 2612 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 15649 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.10.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.R.P(PD)No. 2612 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No. 15649 of 2018
1.D.Gunasekaran
2.G.Ramesh Kumar
3.G.Suresh Kumar
4.G.Maheswaran ...Petitioners
Vs.
P.Sankaranarayanan ..Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.04.2018 in Pauper
O.P.No. 44 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.

¶7

For Petitioners : Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi For Respondents : Mr.RMD.Nasuralla

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

This revision is as against an order allowing the plaintiff in the

¶10

suit namely, O.S.NO. 85 of 2018 to sue as a indigent person.

¶11

1/4

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

C.R.P(PD).No. 2612 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 15649 of 2018

¶14

The plaintiff sued for recovery of money of sum of

¶15

Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment till date of recovery. The amounts sought to be recovered in the suit was Rs.44,80,000/-. The Court fee payable is Rs.3,36,000.50/-. The plaintiff claimed that he has no means to pay the Court fee and sought for permission to sue as an indigent person. The learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore as by the order impugned in this revision dated 27.04.2018 allowed the said petition and directed the suit to be numbered as an original suit. Since the perusal of the order did not reveal that notice was served on the Government Pleader as required under Order 33 Rule 6 of C.P.C, I had called for the records from the Trial Court.

¶16

A perusal of the records shows that no notice was issued to the

¶17

Government Pleader in the application filed seeking permission to sue as a

¶18

indigent person in Pauper O.P.NO. 44 of 2016. Order 33 Rule 6 of C.P.C.,

¶19

reads as follows:-

¶20

“Where the Court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds stated in rule 5, it shall

¶21

2/4

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

C.R.P(PD).No. 2612 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 15649 of 2018

¶24

fix a day (of which at least ten day's clear notice shall be given to the opposite party and the Government pleader) for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce in proof of his indigency, and for hearing any evidence which may be adduced in disproof thereof.”

¶25

A plain reading of the above provision shows that a duty is cast on the Court

¶26

to serve notice on the Government Pleader before granting permission. The

¶27

said mandatory requirement has not been complied with. This renders the order of the Trial Court materially irregular.

¶28

This civil revision petition is therefore, allowed. The order of the Trial Court is set aside, the original petition is remitted to the Trial Court. The Trial Court is directed to issue notice to the Government Pleader and dispose of the original petition strictly in terms of the provisions of Order 33 Rule 6 of C.P.C. No costs.

15.10.2020

kkn

3/4

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

C.R.P(PD).No. 2612 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 15649 of 2018

¶34

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. KKN

¶35

To:

¶36

The Principal District Judge,
Cuddalore.
C.R.P(PD)No. 2612 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No. 15649 of 2018
15.10.2020

¶37

4/4

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

D.Gunasekaran v. P.Sankaranarayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Gunasekaran v. P.Sankaranarayanan

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

Zainab Sabira Vs S.Imtiaz Ahmed

Kanthamma Vs Sarojammal

C. Sekar Vs Subramani (Deceased)

Mathusuthanan Vs Priya

Usain Vs N.Samboornam

Umamaheswari Vs Kannu @Kandasamy Gounder