This revision petition challenged the dismissal of a prayer to sue as a pauper. The High Court found the petitioner failed to prove indigency and did not found any infirmity in the lower court's order dismissing the petition as per CPC provisions.
Petitioner directed to pay court fees within two 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.(P.D).No.3951 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(PD) No.3951 of 2018
P.Vijayaraja ... Petitioner
Vs
1.E.Chinnathambi
2.T.Kandasamy
3.S.Kuppusamy
4.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Salem District,
Salem-1 ...
Respondents
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the dismissal order in POP.No.285 of 2015 in unnumbered OS.No. Of 2015 dated 27.09.2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar For Respondents R1 to 3 : No appearance R4 : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, Government Advocate(CS)
1/4
C.R.P.(P.D).No.3951 of 2018
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the dismissal order in
POP.No.285 of 2015 in unnumbered OS.No. Of 2015 dated 27.09.2018 on
the file of the Principal District Judge, Salem, thereby dismissing the
petition seeking permission to file suit on pauper without payment of court
fees.
money to the tune of Rs.40,49,833/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. While filing the suit, the petitioner also filed petition to treat him as pauper and seeking permission to file suit on pauper without payment of court fees.
2/4
C.R.P.(P.D).No.3951 of 2018
original petition, it is seen that the petitioner simply averred as if the petitioner has no other property and he had no bank balance. Therefore, he could not able to pay court fees. Therefore, admittedly the petitioner failed to comply the condition as contemplated under Order Rule 33 (5) ( c) of
CPC. In the absence of pleadings, and also absence of any amount of evidence, the petitioner cannot be declared as indigent person. Therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the court below.
the petitioner is directed to pay the court fees within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.
13.07.2021
lok Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No
3/4
C.R.P.(P.D).No.3951 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
To
The Principal District Judge,
Salem.
C.R.P.(PD) No.3951 of 2018
13.07.2021
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the high court's dismissal of the pauper's court fees petition, due to failure to provide evidence of indigency, was legally infirm or illegal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Vijayaraja
E.Chinnathambi
T.Kandasamy
S.Kuppusamy
The District Collector, Collectorate, Salem District, Salem-1
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
