SUSHIL THOMAS ABRAHAM Vs. M/S. SKYLINE BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rejection of an indigent application in a suit is no bar to file a subsequent application in respect of the same right to sue while refusal to allow the application is a bar to a second application. These different legal consequences that flow from the rejection of and the refusal to allow an indigent application make it necessary in this proceedings to dissect and examine the relevant provisions in Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The petitioner is an engineer by profession. To recover Rs.74,66,107/- from the respondents he filed a suit in the form of an indigent application in the court of the II Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, which was taken on its file as O.P (Ind) 38 of 1996. Notice was issued to the respondents, who entered appearance and objected to the prayer. In the enquiry the learned Sub Judge held that since the petitioner did not disclose all his assets, he could not be allowed to sue as an indigent. The court 'disallowed' the prayer and directed him to pay the court fees. In CMA 248 of 1998 filed by the petitioner this court confirmed the order of the lower court. Subsequently the petitioner paid the required court fees. After trial the lower court dismissed the suit. Now the plaintiff wants to prefer an appeal against the decree as an indigent person. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents. The objection is that the application for leave to file the appeal as an indigent person is barred under Order 33 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Heard Sri.Saji Issac and Sri.Vinod Bhat learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents respectively. We have also heard the learned government pleader.