KURU ERAMMA Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Perused the impugned Order. By the impugned Order, the Trial Court has granted permission to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein, who are minors to sue as indigent persons. The sole contention urged by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Guardian/Mother of respondent Nos. 1 &2 has properties and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have taken note of the same while adjudicating the issue.

(2.) The Trial Court has negatived this contention by rightly relying on a Judgement of the Delhi High Court in Disha Sethi vs. Chander Mohan Sethi, 2008 AIR(Del) 81. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the said Judgment

(3.) In my opinion, the financial condition of the guardian or next friend or any other relative of the applicant is totally irrelevant and cannot be taken into consideration at all for the purpose of determining as to whether the applicant is an indigent person as defined in Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In view of the above, I find no legal infirmity in the impugned Order to warrant interference. The Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.