GUSSAUN Vs. PARVEEN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul-Spiti District at Mandi in Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 41 of 1995/2 of 1993, dated 18-9-1996. By means of impugned judgment, deceased Smt. Kasturu was held to be an indigent person and after her death, her legal representatives (present respondents 1 and 2) were also held to be indigent persons and consequently leave to file the suit in their capacity as such, was granted.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are that initially an application under Order 33, CPC was filed by Smt. Kasturu as an indigent person seeking leave of the Court to institute the suit as such. This matter came up before the trial Court who vide its judgment date 18-6-1990 held that Smt. Kasturu is not an indigent peron as such her prayer was declined. This order of the trial Court was questioned by Smt. Kasturu in an appeal, and by means of judgment, the appeal was allowed and the case was remanded back to the trial Court for decision afresh. Again vide its judgment dated 27-11-1992 trial Court rejected the claim of Smt. Kasturu and dismissed the application filed by her. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment of the trial Court, Smt. Kasturu preferred an appeal before the appellate Court below, who by means of impugned order has allowed the same as noted hereinabove, hence this revision by the respondents. It may be appropriate to notice here that when the appeal was pending before the appellate Court below, Kasturu died and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were ordered to be brought on record as her legal representatives in the case.

(3.) So far the matter relating for judging whether a person is an indigent person or not, possession of financial resources is the material criteria and not the property which a party is possessed of. In the instant case, what appears to have weighed with the trial Court was that late Smt. Kasturu was possessed of enough immovable properties and, therefore, it was of the view that she was in a position to pay the Court-fee. What is required to ascertain the fact whether the applicant is possessed of sufficient means for payment of Court-fee and not the extent of property owned and/or possessed by the applicant. That being so, the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court regarding Kasturu being an indigent person do not call for any interference and accordingly those are upheld in view of the evidence on the file.