RAJU KAUSHAL AND ORS. Vs. SUMITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri J.B. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners Raju Kaushal and Shashi Kaushal are aggrieved by the order dated 6 -1 -2014 passed by XIIIth Civil Judge Class I, Indore in Civil Suit No. 3/13. Briefly stated the facts of the case, Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the respondent, was not noticed regarding the application moved for conducting the suit as an indigent person. The impugned order, permitting the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person, was passed without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/respondents. That the plaintiff/respondent Yashpal had purchased a house bearing No. 177 -A situated at Gadriya Mohalla, Labriya Bheru, Indore by registered sale deed dated 14 -12 -1995. The petitioners Raju Kaushal and Shashi Kaushal, are the younger brothers of Yashpal Kaushal, who died early, and the present respondent Smt. Sumitra Bai is the widow of Yashpal Kaushal. The petitioners were living on rental basis in these two rooms and on the death of Yashpal Kaushal, Smt. Sumitra, the present respondent took over the house and being the close legal heirs the petitioners/respondents Raju Kaushal and Shashi Kaushal were paying Rs. 1,000/ - and Rs. 2,000/ - per month respectively. Subsequently due to irregularities in payment of the rent respondent Smt. Sumitra asked them to vacate the premises. Hence, plaintiff Smt. Sumitra did not wish to continue their tenancy. She also stated that the rent of Rs. 3,000/ - per month, which was paid to her husband Yashpal Kaushal, is stopped by the petitioners/respondents.

(3.) PER contra, Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has vehemently opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioners/respondents. He submitted that the application had not been moved under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and under section 35 of the Court Fees Act. The benefit has been given straightway as per Notification dated 1 -4 -1983 issued by the State Government. Placing reliance on Mohammad Sadik and others v. Khursheed Ahmed, : 2013(3) MPLJ 365 whereby this Court has categorically held thus: