SHAKUNTLA Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dtd. 4/4/2018 (Annexure P-6) passed by the District Judge, Ambala, whereby the application to file the appeal as an indigent person was dismissed and the applicant-petitioner was directed to deposit the requisite Court fees on or before the next date of hearing.

(2.) The reasoning which prevailed with the District Judge was that a report had been received from the Collector that the applicant-petitioner does not own any land. However, the house in Sultanpur is newly constructed. The report also stated that the financial position of Shakultla Devi is sound. The applicant had also been questioned by the said Court and had given the statement that the value of the utensils and the clothes was Rs.2000.00 and by noticing that the house where she was residing cannot be taken into consideration since her share would be exempt from attachment, the application was dismissed by noticing that only she had filed the appeal and not her sons and daughter. Thus, keeping in view the statement that the value of clothes and utensils was around Rs.2000.00, the application was dismissed by holding that the various judgments cited were not applicable.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that inspite of the report of the Collector which showed that she had got no other land except the house, the order of the District Judge was not justified. It is submitted that the provisions of Order 33 CPC, thus, have not been appreciated in their correct perspective and the District Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law.