In a civil revision, the High Court dismissed a challenge to the dismissal of an application for indigent status. The court found the application non-bona fide, citing the petitioner's expensive attire and senior counsel representation.
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.
Civil Revision No. 1426 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1426 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.3.2012
Mohinder Singh
.. Petitioner
v.
M/s Rameshwar Dass Mahabir Parsad
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 28.2.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permission to file appeal as an indigent person, was dismissed.
It is a case in which a suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of 9,32,415/- against the petitioner on 27.4.2005. The same was decreed on 16.12.2011 for 6,26,600/- along with interest. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned lower appellate court along with application for permission to file appeal as an indigent person. The application having been rejected by the learned court below, the petitioner is before this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner that he does not own any property except some utensils and food articles. He has some clothes to wear. He cannot arrange the court fee to be deposited. With the application, he had annexed the list of articles/property owned by him, i.e., one coat amounting to 200/-; utensils of 300/-; other belongings worth
Civil Revision No. 1426 of 2012 [2]
` 400/- and one residential kacha-pucka room. He submitted that while rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner, the court had not followed the procedure as prescribed under Order 44 Rule 3 CPC. The enquiry was not conducted.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The learned court below, while rejecting the application, has noticed the fact that when the petitioner appeared in the court, he was wearing expensive apparel. He was represented by two senior counsels, who are quite expensive. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to explain that Mr. H. S. Atwan, Advocate is resident of a neighbouring village of the petitioner and he had agreed to conduct the case of the petitioner without charging any fee, but the fact shows that the petitioner was represented by two senior counsels even before the trial court. Another counsel, namely, Mr. R. K. Goel was also representing the petitioner before the trial court and even in the appeal as well. What was the reason that even the other counsel also did not charge fee could not be explained. The only contention raised was that the procedure was not followed, but the law of procedure is subservient to substantial justice.
The facts and circumstances, as have been noticed by the court below, and in the present order show that the application filed by the petitioner was not bonafide and no time was required to be wasted in merely following the procedure.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
5.3.2012 mk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application for permission to sue as an indigent person without conducting an enquiry under Order IV Rule 3 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohinder Singh
M/s Rameshwar Dass Mahabir Parsad
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
