Janak Kumari vs Land Acquisition Officer

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Government Advocate representing the Respondent-State.

The applicant has presented this appeal in forma pauperis claiming to be an indigent person.

A report from the Collector has been called for in this matter. In his report dated 1st May, 2000 the Collector, District Guna, has disclosed that as the husband of the applicant, who has 13 acres of land in district Lalitpur and is having an income of about Rs. 30,000/- per annum, the present applicant could not be taken to be an indigent person as she is living alongwith her aforesaid husband as a member of the Hindu Joint Family.

A perusal of the report of the Collector indicates that the income of the husband of the applciant has been taken to be the income of the present applicant and on that basis the applicant has been reported to be a person not falling within the category of an ''indigent person''.

The provisions contained in Order 33 Rule 1 CPC requires an inquiry into the financial condition of a person who applies to sue in forma pauperis. The explanation to Order 33 Rule 1 defines a pauper to be a person who is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay fees prescribed by law. It is, therefore, obvious that the inquiry has to be into the means of the person who applies to sue as undigent person. The Collector has not certified that the present applicant has any source of income and is possessed of any means or sufficient realisable property from which she could arrange for payment of court-fees. The report is based on the irrelevant and extraneous consideration.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as brought on record sufficient ground has been made out for granting permission to the applicant to file the appeal in forma pauperis as an indigent person.