PARVINDER SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC for filing the suit as an indigent person. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has acquired 3 acres of agricultural land by inheritance and as per Explanation II attached to Order 33 Rule 1 CPC, any property which is acquired by a person after the presentation of his application for permission to sue as an indigent person and before the decision of the application, shall be taken into consideration. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that even if the plaintiff is not cultivating the land on his own, it could still be leased out for the purpose of earning income.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the presumption that the plaintiff can earn money out of the agricultural land by leasing it out. He has relied upon a judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case Rajamma Joseph v. Binu Prasad, : 2010(1) KLT 572 to contend that until and unless there is a proof of the derivation of income, the indigent person is not liable to pay the Court fee.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner and hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.