CHAYAMANI TRIPATHY Vs. DHARMANANDA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both plaintiffs are appellants in this appeal under O. 43 R. 1 (na) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) against order refusing permission to them to sue as indigent persons.

(2.) Indigency is personal economic condition. Therefore, in case more than one person intend to sue as indigent persons, indigency of all persons together is to be considered. Even though one of them would be indigent or both individually would be indigent but the means possessed by them together would be sufficient to pay the court-fee payable, permission ought not to be granted. Since indigency is personal, legal representatives cannot take advantage of the indigency of their predecessor in interest who died applying for permission or continued the suit after being permitted. See 1973(2) C. W. R. 1792 Smt. Annapurna Das v. Manoranjan Rath, 1987 (1) O. L. R. 313 Bauli Sahu v. Bidyadhar Satpathy. Similarly sufficiency of means; who are to conduct the suit on behalf of plaintiff like guardian, husband, mother or father or are interested in the result of the suit would not be ground to refuse or withdraw permission where plaintiff is indigent. AIR 1978 Orissa 37 Bhubaneswar Misra v. Sakuntala Devi, (1978) 45 C. L. T. 431 (Hara Satnami v. Dhaneswar Putel and (1987) II O. L. R. 545 Santosh Samal v. Baja Achilu.

(3.) While enabling a person to sue as indigent person under O. 33 R. 1 C.P.C. in Explanation meaning of indigent person has been explained. Portion material for this case reads as follows :-