VIKRAM RAITANI Vs. SMT. SANGEETA RAITANI ALIAS POONAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Nos.619 of 1993 623 of 1993 and 624 of 1993 are listed for admission today. The parties have been served and the contesting opposite party have put in appearance through Sri Triloki Nath. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have also been exchanged. The learned counsel for the applicant and Opposite party, both requested the court to decide the revisions finally, instead formally hearing for admission only. The learned counsel for the parties stated that the record of the court below need not be sent for and case be decided, as the parties have already filed necessary counter and rejoinder affidavits. It is also submitted that there is another connected Civil Revision No.87/93 between the parties, which is pending for admission, which is a connected civil revision. The learned counsel for the parties requested to decide the said revision also which is a connected revision, although not listed before the court. The record was also obtained and with the consent of the parties, Civil Revision No.87/93 is also being heard along with the other connected civil revisions.

(2.) These four civil revisions are connected civil revisions. By a common order dated 13-11-93. the learned Civil Judge, Pilibhit decided the three applications. The first application moved by the plaintiff respondent is 4-Ga by which she claimed for relief to file a suit as indigent person under Order 33 Rule 1 of C.P.C. The wife-opposite party claimed that he has filed the suit for interim and future maintenance @Rs. 10,000.00per month which is pending. She claimed that she is an indigent person, she has no means to pay the necessary court fee for filing the suit. In her application, it is said that details of the property was given in the application. The affidavit in support of her application was filed. It was said that she possessed the property valuing Rs. 700.00, made her statement before the Court. It was argued before the Court below that the requisite court fee would be between Rs. 12000.00 to Rs. 14000.00 and she is not possessed of any means to pay the same. She was asked in her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the applicant that he owns 1/4th share in a house at Calcutta, which fact was denied. It was also argued before the court that in view of decision reported in AIR 1989 Pat 179 (Radhey Shyam Prasad Vs. Smt. Sheo Dulari) and AIR 1973 Ker 19 (Mumtik Ambal Amma Vs. Narayani Katti Kalakamba ) that a share in a joint property is not easily devisable and saleable. As such, such joint property cannot be treated as a transferrable property out of which by sale, court fee could be paid. As such, the applicant was said to be not entitled to raise such an objection that the opposite party possessed 1/4th share in a house at Calcutta which may be treated a property in hands of the opposite party. On consideration of these facts, stated above, the court below accorded permission to the applicant for filing the suit as an indigent person.

(3.) The above order holding the opposite party as indigent person, has been challenged by the present Civil Revision No.619/93 by the husband-applicant Sri Vikram Raitani.