MAMTA RAJOTIA Vs. SUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the petitioner, who is a doctor, for the forcible and unnecessary premature delivery, resulting into death of her male child. She also filed an application under Order 33 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") for seeking permission to sue as an indigent person in which an order was passed on 23.11.2012 in the following manner:-

(2.) Ultimately, the Patwari submitted his report in which he stated that Suman wife of Ashok Kumar son of Satpal, Jat by caste, permanent resident of village Mankawas is an indigent person. The said report dated 09.01.2013 was taken into consideration by the Civil Court and on 05.03.2013, the following order was passed:- "Today, the case is fixed for awaiting report of Ld. Collector qua the status of plaintiff. It has been reported that the applicant is an indigent person. In view of the report submitted by Tehsildar, Charkhi Dadri, the applicant is hereby declared as an indigent person. The suit is ordered to be checked. Now notice to defendant be issued for 27.07.2013. Long date is given due to heavy pendency of old cases."

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 05.03.2013 on the ground that no notice was given to her before deciding the application declaring the plaintiff as an indigent person. It was also alleged that the Patwari is not the competent person to declare the plaintiff as an indigent person nor he had given any reason in his report. The said application was contested by the plaintiff and vide the impugned order dated 08.05.2014, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed, observing that the Civil Court is not competent to decide the fact as to whether the plaintiff is an indigent person or not which could have only been decided on the executive side.