Parveen Kumar Anand vs State Bank of India

V.K. Jhanji, J.—The suit for recovery of Rs. 1,18,000/- with interest was decreed against the petitioner by the trial Court. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court. The petitioner also made an application to file the appeal as an indigent person. It was claimed in the said application that he does not own or possess any property or amount to pay the requisite court fee. The said application was dismissed by the first appellate Court on the ground that a sum of Rs. 4790.68 p is lying deposited to the credit of the petitioner in his provident fund account and he can raise, loan from this amount, for payment of court-fee. This order is being impugned by the petitioner in the present revision petition.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides as under ;-

(Explanation 1.--A person is an indigent person--

(a) if he is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or

(b) where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the subject-matter of the suit.

Section 60(1)(ka) of the CPC provides that :-

"(ka) all deposites and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 (23 of 1968), for the time being applies, in so far as they are declared by the said Act as not to be liable to attachment."

A reading of these provisions clearly indicates that deposit under the Provident Fund is exempted from attachment in a decree passed by any Court, and therefore, the amount lying deposit to the credit to the petitioner in his provident fund account cannot be taken into consideration for holding that he is not an indigent person. Thus, to my mind, the petitioner is an indigent person and is entitled to prefer an appeal as such.

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The first appellate Court is directed to register the appeal of the petitioner and thereafter, decide the same on merits in accordance with law.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the first Appellate Court on 10-5-1993.