SAROJNI NISHAD Vs. HARPAL SINGH SIBBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case where the trial Court took eleven years in deciding the indigency of plaintiff No.1 and her four minor children, as she lost her husband by electrocution. The judicial officers dealing with application for exemption from payment of court fees adjourned the matter mercilessly and routinely without appreciating the fact that plaintiff No.1 is a widow who lost her husband and has approached the Court claiming compensation, and failed to exhibit sincerity and respect to the cause brought before the court and that is why, it took eleven years in deciding as to whether the applicants / plaintiffs are entitled for the benefit of notification under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and remittance of court fees.

(2.) The husband of plaintiff No.1 Shri Raj Kumar Nishad died on account of electrocution on 18-9-2006. Plaintiff No.1 along with her two minor children, father-in-law and mother-in-law laid a claim before the District Judge, Raipur, on 7-5-2007 stating inter alia that she is entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs.15,25,000/-. She also filed an application under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 that she is unable to pay the court fees. That application was enquired into by the learned Additional District Judge in which plaintiff No.1 has clearly stated that she is only earning her livelihood by working as daily-wager and getting Rs.40-50/- per day. But the learned Additional District Judge was not satisfied and directed for calling of report from the Tahsildar, Aarang on 6-7-2007 and ultimately, on 3-4-2010, the Additional District Judge directed that notice be issued and report be called from the Collector and thereafter, the matter was routinely adjourned time to time and thereafter, the report received as late as on 27-9-2017. The aforesaid report states as under: -

(3.) Along with the report, a certificate was also filed to the effect that the annual income of plaintiff No.1 is Rs.40,000/- per annum. The learned Additional District Judge relying upon the said report, on 26-10-2017 blindly accepted the report holding that as per the notification dated 1-4-1983 income should be less than Rs.25,000/- per annum for getting the benefit of exemption of court fees, but as income of plaintiff No.1 is Rs.40,000/- per annum, she is not entitled for the benefit of exemption from court fees under the said notification. Questioning that order, this writ petition has been preferred.