Smt. Rajesh Devi vs Ankit Khokhar and Another

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist files supplementary affidavit. The same is taken on record.

By means of this revision, the revisonist has prayed that the impugned order dated 18-5-2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rishikesh, whereby the application paper No. 54-A was allowed the permission was granted by the court to register the suit as pauper suit.

The revisionist is the defendant No. 2 in the suit filed by Mr. Ankit Khokher against Upkhand Adhikari, Vidyut Vitran Upkhand and another. The Court has obtained the report of the Collector as to whether the plaintiff is an indigent person. The report was obtained from Tehsildar concerned and on the basis of the report, the Collector has recommended that the plaintiff is a disabled as well as an indigent person.

The revisionist filed her objection against the application moved by the plaintiff alleging that the father of the plaintiff is a driver in the Roadways and he is getting Rs. 10,000/- as salary.

The suit has been filed for compensation against the Electricity Department on the ground that the plaintiff had met with a severe accident on account of electric current of the electric lines and the father of the plaintiff has deposed before the court that he had incurred expenditure of approximately Rs. Ten lacks by sale of his land and had also withdrawn Rs. 2,50,000/- from fund for that purpose. The electricity department had only paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. It was also alleged that the body of the plaintiff was burnt and his both the hand and right leg were completely damaged and the doctor has reported that the plaintiff-injured is 100% disabled. To save the life of the plaintiff, his two legs were amputated besides one arm from the shoulder was also amputated.

Under the provisions of Order 33, Rule 1 C.P.C., a person is an indigent person if he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit or 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.

From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is obvious that there is no property in the name of the plaintiff. The learned trial court made an inquiry into the means of the person concerned and on the basis of the report obtained from the Collector has rightly held that the opposite party No. 1-plaintiff is an indigent person.

By way of supplementary affidavit, the revisionist has filed the extract of Khatauni of 1414-1419 Fasli of village Mukandpur. A perusal of the same shows that there are 7 co-sharers in the land. Even the revisionist has failed to bring on record any document before the trial court to show that the minor plaintiff is having any property or sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law as per provision of Order 33, Rule 1 C.P.C.

The suit has been filed on the behest of the minor. The trial court, after conducting the inquiry and obtaining the report of the Collector, has rightly held that the plaintiff is a minor and ultimately, allowed the plaintiff the institute the suit as pauper.

The revision lacks merits and the impugned order dated 18-5-2010 does not call for any interference by this Court in revision, which is liable to be dismissed outright.

The revision is dismissed.