DILLIP KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (na) Civil Procedure Code against an order rejecting. an application for permission sue as an indigent person.

(2.) APPELLANT ha Student in Engineeing College He filed a suit against State of Orissa, Sambalpur Universrty and controller of Examination of that University for damages of Rs. 1,00,000/ -, on the ground that he is Unable to pay the court -fee, he fifed application to be permitted to sue as an indigent person as provided under Order 33, rule1 C. P. C. In paragraph of the application, he slated that he Is not in possession of sufficient means other than property described in Schedule to enable him to pay the fee prescribed for by law. This application was objected to by the University and the Controller where in paragraph 2, it Is stated that the contention made in paragraph 2 of the application is not known to them. - -

(3.) IN 45 (1978) C.L.T. 431 (Kara Satnami v. Dhaneswar) Patel and another)it has been held that possession of substantial property by the next friend of a minor would not be a ground to reject the petition. In 1987 (II) OIR 545 (Santosh Samal v. Baja Sehilu and others) it has been held that property of the mother who as guardian of the minor filed the suit should not be reckoned for considering indigency of minor plaintiff. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid two decisions, non -disclosure of movable and Immovable properties of the parents cannot be a ground to reject the petition for permission to sue as indigent person.