BASIL THOMAS Vs. V.M. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE matters are filed by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration, specific performance and certain other reliefs. The value of the subject matter of the suit was determined in the plaint as more than Rs22 lakhs and the court fee payable on the plaint is Rs1,94,560/-. One-tenth of the court fee payable on the plaint at the stage of institution was remitted. When the suit was posted for payment of balance court fee, the plaintiff invoked Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought that he may be granted leave to sue as an indigent person, in so far as the balance court fee is concerned. Even as per the impugned order, no statement of the revenue authorities as regards their views in the matter was available. The court below, however, looked into the schedule of the application seeking leave to sue as indigent and took the view that a commission be issued to ascertain the assets of the plaintiff. Even going by the order passed by the court below, which is Ext.P3 in O.P.(C) No.448/2013, the plaintiff possesses a car, television and certain other equipments for a decent living in his household. He has disclosed that he has six soverings of gold. According to the court below, gold is equivalent to liquid money and the nature of belongings disclosed was sufficient enough to have the entire court fee paid. The plaintiff did not find ways and means to deposit the bata fixed by the court below for the commissioner. The court below thereupon passed Ext.P1 order in O.P.(C) No.448/2013 rejecting the application for leave to sue as an indigent and directed the plaintiff to pay the balance curt fee within three days. As against that, the plaintiff came to this Court earlier and obtained an order in writ jurisdiction requiring the court below to hear the application for review of that order. That led to a more elaborate order (Ext.P3 in O.P.(C) No.448/2013), which expands and reasons out the decision that the plaintiff has to pay the balance court fee. Since the balance court fee was not paid, the court below rejected the plaint. That has led to R.F.A.No.822/2012.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons,