SUSHILA TANWAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN old and poor woman, Smt. Sushila Tanwar, had filed an application under the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate. She had also filed an application under Order 33(2) CPC for being permitted to institute the suit as an indigent person. However, by order dated 16.5.2013, the application under Order 33(2) CPC had been dismissed by the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(2.) MR . Vinod Tanwar, the petitioner's son has appeared before this Court as the learned members of the Bar are on strike, and pleaded the case. According to him, the relevant words in Order 33 Rule 1 CPC, are that a person is an indigent person, if he/she is not possessed of "sufficient means". According to him, according to the valuation of the property done by the Collector (Stamps), the value of the property is Rs. 66,12,820/ -. Therefore, a stamp duty of Rs. 1,98,384.60 has to be paid by the petitioner. Secondly, his father who was a govt. servant, receives a pension of merely Rs. 5700/ - per month. Therefore, the petitioner does not have the sufficient means to pay the stamp duty. Therefore, considering the meager income of the family, the petitioner is not in a position to pay the stamp duty immediately. But the petitioner had given an undertaking before the learned Judge that she would pay the stamp duty prior to issuance of the probate. Thus, according to Mr. Vinod Tanwar, the learned Judge has erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.

(3.) HEARD both the parties before this court and perused the impugned order dated 16.5.2013.