R.GANESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

(2.) This civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against the impugned fair and decretal order dated 12.9.2019 made in unnumbered I.A../2019 in O.S.No.142 of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Salem, whereby the prayer of the appellant/plaintiff to restore the suit filed by him as forma pauperis - indigent person, which was dismissed for default on 26.10.2018 for his non-appearance, has been rejected holding that the appellant/plaintiff has filed the unnumbered application without paying the Court fee as per the direction dated 26.10.2018.

(3.) Mr.M.V.Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff argued that when the suit in O.S.No.142 of 2010 was filed after obtaining the order dated 7.6.2010 passed in P.O.P.No.111 of 2009 by the learned Additional District Judge, Salem under Rules 1 to 3 of Order XXXIII of C.P.C., permitting the appellant/plaintiff to sue the suit as an indigent person, although the suit was dismissed for default on 26.10.2018 for his non-appearance, his status as an indigent person has not changed and continues to be an indigent person, therefore, there is no need for paying the Court fee. Secondly, the order dated 7.6.2010 passed in P.O.P.No.111 of 2009 adjudging the appellant/plaintiff as an indigent person, has not been recalled at any point of time. Therefore, he pleaded that when the order dated 7.6.2010 passed in P.O.P.No.111 of 2009 continues even today, the impugned decretal order rejecting the unnumbered application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order IX, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to restore the suit, on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff failed to pay the Court fee is unjustified and the same is liable to be set aside.