Anil Kumar vs Ranbir Singh

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—A suit for seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on account of multiple grievous injuries inflicted to the respondent-plaintiff by the petitioners-defendants resulting in permanent disability, was filed by the respondent-plaintiff as an indigent person under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC.

Before the said suit could be entertained by the Civil Court, the plaintiff was to establish his eligibility to sue as an indigent person for which he had made an application before the said Court. In terms of provisions of Order XXXIII CPC, the Lower Court had called upon the plaintiff [now respondent] to lead evidence. The defendants had also been given an opportunity to lead their independent evidence as also in rebuttal evidence to the evidence produced by the plaintiff.

A report from the Collector with regard to assets of the plaintiff had also been received. Vide order of 3.5.2014, which is now impugned in this petition, the Lower Court with regard to assets of the plaintiff, appreciating the evidence on record and attending circumstances, allowed the application of the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC.

Invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the said order, the petitioners-defendants have claimed that respondent-plaintiff is possessing sufficient means to pay court fees and by suppression of material facts, has misled the Court though, he has agricultural land as well as residential house. It is claimed that the land of the plaintiff is ancestral and he was also working in a factory during day time as also a night Watchman and thus, was earning sufficiently to fend for himself and can easily pay the court fee.

Hearing has been provided to learned counsel for the petitioners.

Merely because father of the respondent-plaintiff is having agricultural land as also a residential house, where respondent-plaintiff is also residing, is no ground to attribute ownership of the land as also of the house to the respondent-plaintiff at this stage. Even if the house as also agricultural land have come to the father of the respondent-plaintiff from his father in turn during the life time of his father, respondent-plaintiff has no right to lay claim on the income, if any, arising therefrom.

Report [Annexure P/3] from the Tehsildar also reveals that respondent-plaintiff has neither any land nor has any house. Merely because financial condition of his father is good, who owns agricultural land as also residential house, is not a circumstance to reject the application of the respondent-plaintiff for being declared as an indigent person.

Lower Court has considered the evidence produced by the respondent-plaintiff consisting of statements of Jangsher [AW-1] as also of Anil Kumar [DW-1]. Merely because Anil Kumar [DW-1] had stated that respondent-plaintiff was working as a Driver and as a Watchman in a factory, is not sufficient particularly when he could not withstand the test of cross-examination and could neither give name and address of the factory nor any proof could be produced in this behalf by the petitioners-defendants.

Impugned order discusses the evidence as also the attending facts and circumstances and as such the same is well written order. There is nothing to interfere with the same either on facts or in law.

The revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.