Allowed

Smt.Ganvri v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Feb 2013CMA/1281/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the rejection of an application for permission to file a suit as an indigent person. The Court held that the lower court failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure under Order XXXIII, Rule 1A, CPC for verifying indigency, and remanded the matter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the matter is remanded to the trial court to decide the application afresh following the procedure under Order XXXIII, Rule 1A.

Smt.Ganvri Vs State and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1281/2009

¶3

Smt. Ganvri Vs.

¶4

State of Rajasthan and Ors.

¶5

Date of Order ::4.2.2013

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶7

Mr. Roshan Lal, for the appellant. Mr. Y.P. Khileree, Dy. Govt. Counsel.

¶8

This appeal arises out of order dated 21.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Phalodi; whereby, the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIII CPC for permission to file the suit as indigent person has been rejected.

¶9

The suit was filed by the appellant seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.15,32,500/- on account of so-called negligence of the respondents, whereby, the sterilization performed on her had failed and she had given birth to a daughter. While considering the application filed under Order XXXIII CPC, the learned trial court examined the applicant and on behalf of the respondents, no evidence was produced and thereafter on coming to the conclusion that in the list of properties, the applicant has indicated property worth Rs.31,600/-, it held that the applicantplaintiff was liable to pay the court fees.

¶10

Apparently, the learned trial court has failed to undertake the procedure as contemplated by the provisions of Order XXXIII, Rule 1A CPC, whereby, it is expected from the Court, in the first instance to hold enquiry by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court and the report so made can be adopted by the

¶11

¶12

Court or it can after further enquiry record all findings. The said procedure had not been adopted by the Court. Even otherwise having come to the conclusion that the appellant was possessed of assets worth Rs.31,600/-, the Court without considering the requirement of the fees for filing a suit for sum of Rs.15,32,500/-, has rejected the application, which sum i.e. Rs.31,600/- also falls short of the required court fees.

¶13

In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for deciding the application under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 CPC filed by the applicant afresh after undertaking the procedure provided under Order XXXIII, Rule 1A, as indicated herein-before.

¶14

No costs.

¶15

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶16

rm/-

Smt.Ganvri v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Ganvri v. State and Ors.

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

Nitin Swaroop and Anr. Vs Pradhyuman

Satyanarayan Vs Civil Judge J.D. Kuchaman City and Ors.

Gopal and Anr. Vs Lalit Kumar

Champa Lal Vs J.v.v.N.Ltd.and Ors.

Dara Singh Vs Sahab Ram and Ors.

Bhanwar Lal Vs Chaganlal and Anr.