The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an appellate order that accepted a tenant's indigency claim regarding court fees for a recovery suit, noting the absence of State contestation and no evidence of the opposite.
Civil Revision Petition No. 1972 of 2010 dismissed with no costs.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 1972 of 2010
Order:
This CRP is directed against the order dated 05.02.2010 passed in C.M.A. No.22 of 2007 by the Principal District Judge, Nellore, whereby and whereunder the order dated 02.08.2007 passed in POP No.24 of 2004 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, is set aside. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the respondent claimed to be an indigent person, but paid court fees in some other matters in which he claimed recovery of makta from some other tenants. The case of the respondent is that though the petitioner is cultivating the lands as a tenant, but the petitioner has not paid makta since several years, therefore he was forced to file a petition for recovery of makta amount. Contending that he has no capacity to pay the court fees the respondent herein filed an application to declare him as an indigent person. He was examined as PW.1 and the petitioner herein was examined as RW.1. Though the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore rejected the contention of the respondent, but the lower appellate Court, having appreciated the evidence and material on record, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein. Admittedly, the petitioner herein did not adduce any evidence to show that the respondent herein is having sufficient means to pay the court fees. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that when the respondent herein categorically stated that he has no capacity to pay the court fees, there is nothing to disbelieve his version. Moreover, there is another aspect. As far as the payment of court fee is concerned, it is for the State to contest the matter. When
there is no contest from the State and when the Court has exercised its discretion and passed orders, I do not see any reason to interfere with the said order. Moreover, in case if the OP filed by the respondent herein is decreed, no decree can be passed unless required court fee is paid. In the circumstances, the CRP is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this CRP shall stand closed.
___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.
Date: 06.11.2013 Nsr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the appeal against an indigency application should be allowed when the State did not contest the applicant's claim of poverty.
Petitioner
Respondent
B. CHANDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
