Allowed

K. Gunaseelan v. Dr. Chelladurai

Madras HC18 Jan 2021CRP/383/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the High Court set aside an order dismissing a pauper's petition. The petitioner, a mill worker with no assets, sought to sue in forma pauperis for medical negligence. The High Court held that the lower court erred in refusing permission to sue without court fees, relying on a certificate confirming the petitioner has no movable or immovable properties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the pauper petition was set aside, and the petitioner was permitted to sue in forma pauperis.

K. Gunaseelan Vs Dr. Chelladurai — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP(NPD)No.383 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 15.12.2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 18.01.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶6

CRP(NPD)No.383 of 2017
(Through Video Conferencing)
K.Gunaseelan Petitioner
Vs
1. Dr.Chelladurai
2. Dr.D.Ramamani Respondents

¶7

Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, under Section 115 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 15.09.2016, made in CMA.No.19 of 2014, by the I Additional District Court, Erode, confirming the fair and decreetal order, dated 12.04.2012, made in POP.No.159 of 2010, by the I Additional Sub Court, Erode.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.Nandhakumar

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 15.09.2016, made in CMA.No.19 of 2014, by the I Additional District Court, Erode, confirming the fair and decreetal order, dated 12.04.2012, made in POP.No.159 of 2010, by the I Additional Sub Court, Erode.

¶12

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶13

CRP(NPD)No.383 of 2017

¶14

The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Plaintiff is the Petitioner and the Defendants are the Respondents. The above suit was filed seeking compensation with interest. In the suit, the Plaintiff has filed POP.No159 of 2010, seeking permission to sue in forma pauperis, which was dismissed by the impugned order. The CMA filed against the same was also dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶15

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that allowing the pauper petition would not amount to waiving the court fee completely and working as a supervisor in a Mill is not a ground to assume that he has means to pay the huge court fee, however, the impugned order was passed erroneously. The learned counsel has relied on 2007 5 SCC 698 (R.V.Dev Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala).

¶16

The learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that since the Petitioner is working, he is capable of earning and he has sufficient means to pay the court fee, he is not an indigent person.

¶17

This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their submissions and also carefully perused the materials placed on record.

¶18

In this case, the suit has been filed claiming compensation for medical negligence. The pauper petition has been filed, seeking an order permitting the Petitioner to institute the suit as an indigent person, as he has no sufficient means to pay the Court fee. It is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner has sufficient means to pay the court fee.

¶19

Now, the point that is to be decided is as to whether the impugned order

¶20

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶21

CRP(NPD)No.383 of 2017

¶22

passed by the court below is sustainable or not?

¶23

At the time of institution of a Civil Suit, the Plaintiff is required to pay the requisite Court Fees as prescribed under the Court Fees Act, 1870. However, Order 33 of CPC provides that the poor people, who do not possess sufficient means to pay the Court Fees, are exempted from payment of the Court Fees at the first instance and allows them to prosecute the suit in forma pauperis subject to certain conditions as stipulated under the Order.

¶24

In this case, the court fee payable is Rs.75,000/-. The Petitioner has filed a xerox copy of the certificate, dated 28.09.2015, obtained from the concerned Village Administrative Officer to show that he has no movable and immovable properties and he has no sufficient means to pay the court fee and hence, he is an indigent person. The said certificate reads as under:-

¶25

“<nuhL khtl;lk;. <nuhL tl;lk;. rpj;njhL fpuhkk;. fjt[ vz;/26-10C. eLg;ghisak;. rpj;njhL. Vd;w Kfthpapy; trpj;J tUk; jpU/FzrPyd;. S/o.fpUc;&zK:h;j;jp vd;gtUf;F nkw;go tl;lk;. nkw;go fpuhkj;jpy; mira[k;. mirah brhj;Jf;fs; Vjkpy;iy vd tprhuiz bra;J rhd;wspf;fg;gLfpwJ/@

¶26

10.From the above certificate, it is seen that the Petitioner has no movable and

¶27

immovable properties and he is incapable of paying the court fee. The court below ought to have permitted the petitioner to sue as a pauper. The impugned order passed by the court below is without any basis or reason and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶28

11.In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶29

18.01.2021

¶30

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶31

CRP(NPD)No.383 of 2017

¶32

A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.

¶33

Srcm

¶34

Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm

¶35

¶36

The I Additional District Court, Erode
2. The I Additional Sub Court, Erode
Pre-Delivery Order in
CRP(NPD)No.383 of 2017
18.01.2021

¶37

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

K. Gunaseelan v. Dr. Chelladurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Gunaseelan v. Dr. Chelladurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palanisamy Vs Vijayakumar

R.Kamalanathan, Vs a.Ramesh

Mr.a.Saravanan Vs State of Tamilnadu

K. Purushothaman Vs M/S. Alankar Fancy and General

Padmavathy Vs Karthikeyan

Elamvazhudi Vs Sakunthala