VRINDA Vs. ARUN ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against an order passed in a petition under Order 33 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code which is pending on the original side of this Court The petitioner in that case I.P.A. No. 19/84, has sued for return of her 'istridhan' or alternatively for the recovery of a sum of 2,39,157.00 being the value of that 'intridhan'. She has claimed to be an indigent person not in a position to pay the Court fees required for a suit of this nature. But respondent in that case is the husband of the appellant. Amongst the property claimed are 5 National Savings Certificates of 7 years maturity. Each certificate is of Rs. 1,000.00 and the maturity value is Rs. 10,000.00. These certificates are Nos. 364930 to 364934. The respondent, or rather the ex-husband, as the divorce has now been granted, offered these 5 certificates to the petitioner during her cross-examination. The learned Court had to decide whether the offer of these 5 certificates meant that the petitioner ceased to be an indigent person because this" property of value between Rs. 5,000.00 and Rs. 10,000.00 would mean that she would be in a position to pay the court fee.

(2.) The Court came to the conclusion that the offer was tantamount to a partial decree in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, a court fee was payable. It appears that Explanation II appearing in Order 33 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code was also referred to because it is provided there that if a person acquires property during the pendency of the application that too has to be taken into account in deciding the question whether a person is an indigent person.

(3.) It appears to us that this matter is really covered by Explanation I, which excludes the property which is the subject matter of the suit from being included in the assets of the appellant for determining a question whether he or she is an indigent person. [In para 4, Explanations are reproduced]