A PRABHAKARAN NAIR Vs. K P NEELAKANTAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to sue as an indigent person is sought to be revised by the respondent on three grounds: (1) The applicant (Respondent here) is not an indigent person (2) The allegations do not show a cause of action and (3) No notice was given to the Government Pleader and his report not obtained and considered.

(2.) Art.14 of the Constitution provides equality before law and equal protection of the laws. Directive principles of State Policy contained in Art.39A mandate the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity and provides for free legal aid to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. State is deriving revenue from court fee stamps and a litigant has to pay the prescribed fee when filing the suit. There are many persons who are unable to have access to the legal institutions, due to inability by reason of their poverty to pay the enormous fee which alone could give them an entry. This is why provisions have been enacted in O.33 CPC exempting such persons from paying in the first instance, the fee prescribed and allowing them to prosecute their suits as indigent persons. That is a matter mainly between the State and the plaintiff though the opposite party is also having the right to get notice, contest the claim and adduce evidence. Court fee is a matter essentially between the plaintiff and the State. That is the reason why notice to the Government Pleader is also provided under R.6. The object and purpose of the provisions is to see that resort to the temples of justice is not denied to anybody by reason of penury alone. When the indigent person succeeds the revenue to the State is secured by R.10 and to meet other contingencies also provisions are made in R.11 onwards. Any how the provisions are not intended to close the doors of courts to poorer sections on technical grounds even though back door access by avoidance of court fee is intended to be prevented.

(3.) The benefit is conferred on persons without "sufficient means" and not without any means at all. Pauperism is not a pre-requisite for the leave. What is contemplated is not possession of property but sufficient means. Capacity to raise money and not actual possession of property alone is what the court has to look into. Possession of "sufficient means' refers to possession of sufficient realisable property which will enable the plaintiff to pay the court fee. Possession of hard cash sufficient enough to pay the court fee is not a pre-requisite to make one a person of sufficient means within the meaning of the rule. A person entitled to sufficient property may nevertheless be not possessed of sufficient means to pay court fee. Even one who is entitled to or possessed of property cannot be for that reason alone held to be having sufficient means. What is intended and provided is that justice shall not be denied to a person for the reason that he is not having sufficient means to pay court fee.