SANTOKH SINGH Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In IPA 21/84 the plaintiff sought permission to institute the suit as an indigent person. By the order dated 26th September. 1984 an enquiry into the matter by the Registrar was directed. The Registrar after giving notice to the Delhi Administration as well as to the defendant decided the application on 3rd May, 1985 expressing the opinion that the petitioner is an indigent person and is not in a position to pay the requisite court fee. This conclusion was arrived at by the Registrar exparte because en the date on whi'ch the matter was heard there was no appearance For the defendant. She was also under the impression that no reply had been filed to the plaintiff's application though in fact a reply had been filed on 10th April, 1985. The Registrar purported to decide IPA 21/84 accordingly. This came before the Court on 13th May. 1985 when the learned Judge acting upon the report of the Registrar directed the suit to be registered and the defendant to be summoned.

(2.) When this defendant appeared he filed I.A. 3297/85 slating that he did not appear before the Registrar on 29th April, 1985 due to a borafide mistake and also praying that the order of the Registrar dated 3rd May, 1985 in IPA 21/84 should beset aside. Strictly speaking, IPA 21/84 could have been decided only by the Court on the terms of order 33 rule I A and the Register's decision was only a report submitted to the Court that the plea of the plaintiff could be accepted. In view of this notice of the present application, I A. 3297/85 was given to the plaintiff and further proceedings taken. When the matter came up before the court after notice a statement by the plaintf was recorded. A witness from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was examed on 29th July. 1985 The plaintiff was thereafter permitted to produce affidavit evidence and his affidavit was taken on record on 23rd August, 1985. The defendant was allowed to cross examine the plaintiff I on the affidavit of 23rd August, 1985. The evidence of the defendant was recorded on 25th September, 1985 and the matter now comes up for final decision. At this stage there is no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff I, therefore, dispose of the application after hearing counsel for the defendant.

(3.) The defendant's contention is that the plaintiff is not an indigent person for two reasons. The first is that the plaintiff is admittedly a co-owner having a share in a property bearing No. 8/10, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The plaintiff admits that he has I/4th share in the house the value of which is estimated at Rs. 75.000.00 . The second ground of objection take on behalf of the defendant is that the plaintiff is the owner of a house bearing No. WZI, Hind Nagar, New Delhi.