Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMA No.38 of 2021 by which the High Court has dismissed the said Miscellaneous Appeal and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting an application filed by the appellants herein seeking leave to file the suit as indigent persons, the original applicants – plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
Mohana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that in an application permitting the plaintiffs to sue as indigent persons, it is not open for the learned Trial Court and/or the High Court to opine on merits of the suit and whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed and/or whether the suit is barred by res judicata or not.
Mohana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has stated at the Bar that the appellants are ready to pay the Court fees treating their application to sue as indigent persons dismissed.
Therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is whether on the aforesaid ground the application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC namely to sue as indigent persons could have been rejected by the learned Trial Court?
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
Rejection of application – The Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as an indigent person- (a) where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by rule 2 and 3, or (b) where the applicant is not an indigent persons, or (c) where he has, within two months next before the presentation of the application disposed of any property fraudulently or in order to be able to apply for permission to sue as an indigent person: Provided that no application shall be rejected if, even after the value of the property disposed of by the applicant is taken into account, the applicant would be entitled to sue as an indigent person, or (d) where his allegations do not show a cause of action, or (e) where he has entered into any agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the proposed suit under which any other person has obtained an interest in such subject-matter, or (f) where the allegations made by the applicant in the application show that the suit would be barred by any law for the time being in force, or (g) where any other person has entered into an agreement with him to finance the litigation.”
3 Order 33 Rule 9 CPC provides for withdrawal of permission to sue as an indigent person on the application of the defendant, or of the Government pleader on the grounds stated in Order 33 Rule 9 CPC.
Nothing contained in rule 5, rule 7 or rule 15 shall prevent a Court, while rejecting an application under rule 5 or refusing an application under rule 7, from granting time to the applicant to pay the requisite court-fee within such time as may be fixed by the Court or extended by it from time to time; and upon such payment and on payment of the costs referred to in rule 15 within that time, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was presented.”
While considering Order 33 Rule 5, CPC, it is observed and held that the application for permission to sue as an indigent person has to be rejected and could not be allowed if the allegations in the plaint could not show any cause of action.
Case Title: SOLOMON SELVARAJ Vs. INDIRANI BHAGAWAN SINGH (2022 INSC 1242)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008885-008885 / 2022
