ANUSUIYA RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The plaintiff/appellant filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC seeking permission for institution of the suit without paying the court fees. The trial court dismissed the appellant's application by order dated 16.3.2002 holding that the appellant is not an indigent person and also that plaint does not disclose the cause of action.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant clearly alleged that she is dependent on her husband and her husband also has meager income of Rs.1500/- per month. The trial court committed serious error of law and fact in dismissing the appellant's application on the ground that the income of the husband of the appellant as shown by her appears to be wrong because the husband of the appellant is paying school fees of their daughters and is paying premium for the insurance policy. It is also submitted that while dismissing the application, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction and decided the claim of the plaintiff raised in the plaint on merit after deciding the question of fact as well as debatable questions of law which, according to learned counsel for the appellant, is impermissible in law.