KSEB Vs. KARTHIYAYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit from which the appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs as indigent persons. The application to file the suit as indigent persons was filed on 22.5.1999. That application was allowed on 22.7.2002 and the Original Petition was converted as O.S. No. 657 of 2002 on 26.10.2002. The suit was decreed directing the defendants to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the plaintiffs with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The appeal is filed by defendants 1, 2 and 3. Valuation as well as court fee are calculated by them reckoning interest from 26.10.2002, namely, date of conversion of the petition as suit. Registry has pointed out that interest should have been calculated from 22.5.1999 and at the instance of the appellants, the question has been placed before us.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that interest is payable only from the date on which the Original Petition was converted into a suit and not from the date on which the Indigent O.P. was filed. However, it was not possible for him to show any authorities for substantiating such a stand. We are not inclined to accept that contention as according to us it is basically unsustainable. Rule 8 of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that when an application filed under Order XXXIII Rule 1 is granted, the suit shall be numbered and registered, and it shall be deemed the plaint in the suit, and the suit shall proceed in all other respects as a suit instituted in the ordinary manner. Rule 15-A of Order XXXIII provides that when an application is rejected under Rule 5 or refused under Rule 7, the Court may grant time for payment of the court fee and upon such payment, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was presented.

(3.) Section 3 of the Limitation Act makes it clear that for the purposes of the Limitation Act, a suit is deemed as instituted, in the case of a pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made. Going by Rules 8 and 15-A of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and also Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the only interpretation that is possible appears to be that the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the application for permission to sue as an indigent person is filed. Conversion of the petition and assignment of the number are routine steps, since formalities required to be followed necessarily are to be completed. Payment or otherwise of court fee has no relevance vis a vis the liability to pay interest. Going by the decree, interest is payable from the date on which the suit is instituted. Therefore, we hold that the Registry has correctly assessed the situation. The appellants shall take necessary steps for correcting valuation statement and are to take steps for payment of the deficit court fee.