Dismissed

Rajdeep Sigh v. Rajsher Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2013CR/2020/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order allowing a minor plaintiff to file a maintenance suit as an indigent person. The court held that since the defendant did not plead the existence of the minor's assets, no opportunity to lead evidence was needed, and the order was not perverse.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed. Original order allowing suit as indigent person upheld.

Rajdeep Sigh Vs Rajsher Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2020 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 2020 of 2013 Date of decision : September 16, 2013

Rajdeep Singh

....Petitioner

versus

Master Rajsher Singh

....Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶11

Present : Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. SS Katnoria, Advocate, for the respondent

¶12

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶13

Defendant Rajdeep Singh, who is father of respondent-plaintiff Master Rajesher Singh minor, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 19.10.2012 Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court thereby allowing application Annexure P/2 filed by the respondent-plaintiff for permission to file suit as indigent person

¶14

Plaintiff has filed suit through his mother as next friend claiming maintenance from his father i.e. defendant-petitioner and also seeking creation of charge over the property mentioned in the plaint.

¶15

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.17 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶16

Civil Revision No. 2020 of 2013

¶17

-2-

¶18

Plaintiff has alleged that he has no moveable or immovable property and therefore, he has no means to pay court fee required for the suit.

¶19

Defendant by filing reply Annexure P/3 controverted the averments of the plaintiff made in the application Annexure P/2.

¶20

Learned trial court vide order dated 19.10.2012 Annexure P/5 has allowed the application Annexure P/2 filed by the plaintiff and has permitted the plaintiff to file suit as indigent person. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

¶21

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner relying on judgment of this Court in Bishamber Lal and Anr. Veersus Shanti Pershad Jaiswal and Ors., 2012 (4) PLR 450 contended that no opportunity was given to the parties to lead evidence in support of plea of respondent-plaintiff that he is indigent person and therefore, the impugned order is illegal. It was also argued that the respondent-plaintiff had a Fixed Deposit Receipt in his name and therefore, he was not indigent person.

¶22

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions which cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of this case. On repeated inquiries, counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any plea on behalf of the defendant-petitioner either in reply Annexure P/3 or in the instant revision petition that the respondent-plaintiff had any Fixed Deposit Receipt

¶23

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.17 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶24

Civil Revision No. 2020 of 2013

¶25

-3-

¶26

in his name. In fact the petitioner-defendant has not even pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff has any property at all. Consequently, there was no necessity of requiring the parties to lead evidence when the defendantpetitioner has not pleaded that plaintiff owned any moveable or immovable property. In these circumstances, judgment in the case of Bishamber Lal and Anr. (supra) is not applicable to the instant case.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondentplaintiff has pleaded to be having share in the suit land being ancestral property. However, the suit property stands in the name of the petitioner. On pointed inquiry, counsel for the petitioner did not concede the right of respondent-plaintiff to alienate his claimed share in the suit land to pay requisite court fee. Moreover, suit land being subject matter of the suit cannot be taken into consideration to determine the means or capacity of the plaintiff to pay requisite court fee.

¶28

The trial court has thus rightly permitted the plaintiff to file the suit as indigent person. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

September 16, 2013 'dalbir'

¶30

( L.N. Mittal ) Judge

¶31

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.17 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

Rajdeep Sigh v. Rajsher Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdeep Sigh v. Rajsher Singh

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

Tara Singh Vs Dalbir Kaur & Ors.

Harinder Kaur Vs Nirmal Kaur and Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs M/S Birla Global Finance Limited and Anr.

(O&M) Mangat Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sarabjit Singh and Anr. Vs Ranjit Singh

Kuldeep Kumar Choudhary Vs Suman Lata