STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BALDEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application seeking review of the order dated 11.1.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge (now retired) of this Court setting aside the order of the trial Court passed in favour of the applicant permitting him to sue in forma paupers as an indigent person under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code'). The applicant-respondent No. 1 did not appear despite service by affixation. However, on the submission made by the learned State counsel before the learned Single Judge that the applicant-respondent No. 1 was owner of Scooter bearing Registration No. HR-08A-1789 and the he owned 1/3rd share in a house measuring 401 Sq. Yard, the order passed by the Trial Court on 23.8.2005, was set aside. Notice of the application was issued. The non-applicant-petitioners have filed their reply. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant-respondent No. 1 has pointed out that the scooter to which reference has been made does not belong to the applicant-respondent No. 1. In that regard he has placed on record a copy of the Registration Certificate of the scooter (issued under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) (Annexure A-4). A perusal of the certificate shows that the scooter has been registered in the name of one Shri Krishan Chander. With regard to the house, it has been pointed out that the applicant- respondent No. 1 has 1/3rd share and he has been living in that house with his family members. According to the report submitted by the Collector, Kaithal, on 18.12.2002 (A-1), the applicant-respondent No. 1 Baldev Raj is residing at Khurana Road, Patti Kaisth Seth, Kaithal and belongs to Chamar community. It is claimed that the applicant-respondent No. 1 has only one house in which he is living. Learned counsel has argued that according to Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code only that property can be taken into account which is beyond the power of attachment as given in Section 60 of the Code. Learned counsel has referred to the provisions of Section 60(1) proviso (c) of the Code.

(2.) MR . Harish Rathee, learned State counsel, however, has submitted that the applicant-respondent No. 1 owns various properties and he cannot be permitted to sue in forma paupers as an indigent person.

(3.) A perusal of the aforementioned Order would reveal that a person could be considered as an indigent person if he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit. For determining the issue concerning 'indigent person' the property which is exempt from attachment and the subject of the suit is not to be taken into consideration. The aforementioned position has been clarified further by Section 60(1)(c) of the Code, which reads thus :