DALJIT SINGH Vs. HARDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition filed by defendant Daljit Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to judgment dated 01.05.2013 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. Respondent-plaintiff, who is wife of defendant-petitioner, has filed suit against defendant-petitioner, as indigent person, for recovery of Rs.5 lacs. Learned trial court, vide order dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P-2), dismissed the application moved by plaintiff for permission to file suit as indigent person. However, appeal preferred by plaintiff against order (Annexure P-2), has been allowed by appellate court, vide judgment (Annexure P-1), which is under challenge in this revision petition at the hands of the defendant.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that report of the Collector, called by the trial court, stated that the plaintiff has no means to affix ad valorem court fee on the suit. The defendant-petitioner also did not lead any evidence to depict that the plaintiff-respondent has any property to pay ad valorem court fee on the plaint.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner also emphatically contended that the respondent is employed as JBT teacher. The contention has to be rejected because the plaintiff has simply admitted that she was studying in JBT course. There is no document to depict that after completing the said course, the plaintiff has been employed as teacher. It was also pointed out that the plaintiff has admitted her sons in a private school and has paid huge amount of fees for the same. However, it would also not depict that plaintiff has means to pay the requisite court fee on the plaint. It has not come in evidence as to who deposited the school fees of the sons of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is residing in her parental home. Her brothers or other family members are obviously supporting her to maintain herself and her sons. Consequently, merely because plaintiff's family members are helping the plaintiff to get her sons educated in a good school, it would not depict that plaintiff has means to pay ad valorem court fee on the plaint.