MANJULATA Vs. SIDHKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 30th January, 2004 dismissing the appellant's application under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to file appeal as an indigent person.

(2.) The necessary facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant Smt. Manjulata married to Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat on 15-2-1982. Out of the wedlock, she gave birth to a male and a female child. Her husband Dr. Jugtawat contracted the second marriage on 28-6-1999 with one Suman and started living separately in a house at Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.the appellant continued to reside with both her children viz. Deepak aged about 21 yearss of age & Rakhi aged about 19 years; in the House No. 62-A, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. Admittedly, no divorce has taken place be- tween the appellant and Dr. Jugtawat and, as such, the marriage still subsists. The respondent Sidhkaran, father of Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat, filed a suit for possession of the house in which the appellant is living. The suit has been decreed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur vide judgment and decree dated 29- 4-2000. The appellant has preferred an appeal to this Court, which has been registered as S. B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 121/2000. Along with the appeal, a pauper application being S.B. Civil Misc. Pauper Application No. 1/2000 was filed seeking permission to file the appeal as an indigent person, as she was not in a position to pay the Court-fee of Rs. 50,140/-. An enquiry had been conducted by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) as to the appellant's claim being indigent person. The Collector; Jodhpur submitted his report certifying that the appellant is an indigent person. However, the Enquiry Officer viz; Dy. Registrar (Judl.), as per report dated 16-12-2002, has recorded a finding against the appellant that she is not an indigent person. Learned Single Judge, relying on the report of Dy. Registrar (Judl.) has rejected the application filed by the appellant seeking permission to file an appeal as indigent person.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 30-1-2004. According to the respondent, the appellant is not an indigent person or pauper, as she is holding sufficient funds, valuable ornaments and other movable and immovable properties. The respondent has given details with respect to the appellant's properties as follows : "i. Rs. 41,000/- in Bank A/c; ii. Two kilogram Silver Ornaments worth Rs. 14,000/-; iii. 35 Tolas of gold ornaments worth Rs. 2,39,000/-; iv. Movable house property worth Rs. 10,000/-; v. A plot measuring 40 x 60ft. in Kudi Bhagtasni; and vi. Maintenance from Dr. Jugtawat at the rate of Rs 1500/- p.m. with effect from 22- 7-2000."