Shri Suneal Mangal vs M/S Prime Maxi Mall Management & ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 7069 Del

       *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of Decision: 11.12.2012
+             I.P.A. 12/2009
       SHRI SUNEAL MANGAL                                        ..... Petitioner
                       Through : Mr. Pratik Malik, Adv.
                versus
       M/S PRIME MAXI MALL MANAGEMENT & ANR
                                                                 ..... Respondents
                    Through :   Mr. Rohit K. Aggarwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                          JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

IA 12291/2011(u/S.5 for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing appeal)

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing appeal is

condoned.

IA 12291/2011 stands disposed of accordingly.

OA 107/2011(against the order dt. 21.03.2011 of JR)

This appeal is directed against the order of the Joint Registrar dated 21 st

March, 2011 whereby he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under

Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to sue as an indigent

person.

2. A perusal of the petition would show that the petitioner is seeking to recover

a sum of Rs.61 crores from the respondents. The court fee which was payable on

the amount of Rs.61 crores on the date of filing of the petition comes to about

Rs.61 lakhs. The case of the petitioner is that he does not possess sufficient means

to pay the prescribed court fee.

3. The learned Joint Registrar while dismissing the application took the

following facts into consideration:-

(a) The schedule to the petition clearly discloses that the petitioner had fixed deposits of Rs.25 lacs with Indian Bank and he had paid Rs.5 lac Insurance Policy. Based on the above fixed assets, the petitioner had the means to raise the court fee.

(b) The petitioner though claimed that he does not have immovable property, had deposed that he is working as the Managing Director with approximate monthly income of Rs.60,000/-.

(c) The above facts would clearly establish that the petitioner is not a person having no sufficient means to raise the cash for payment of the court fee.

(d) The report of the Revenue Officials show that the petitioner is residing in a luxurious accommodation with all luxury items and his living standards are of very high status."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has pointed that though the

petitioner has fixed deposit of Rs.25 lakhs with Indian Bank, he had as on the date

of filing of this petition taken an over-draft of Rs.15 lakhs against that FDR.

According to the learned counsel, the amount of over-draft has since reached about

Rs.20 lakhs. Even if only the over-draft amount as on the date of filing of the

petition is taken into consideration, the surplus in the FDR of the petitioner would

be less than Rs.10 lakhs.

5. It has next been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

LIC policies obtained are scheduled to mature between the years 2024 to 2039.

Even if the petitioner is permitted by LIC to close these policies, the paid-up value

which he would get towards these policies would be only a small fraction of the

requisite court fee of Rs.61 lakhs which is required to be paid on the claimed

amount of Rs.61 crores.

As regards the house occupied by the appellant, the learned counsel has

pointed out that it is an accommodation which has taken on lease by the Company

in which the appellant is Managing Director. The premises, therefore, does not

belong to the petitioner/appellant.

6. The learned Joint Registrar noted that as per the report of the SDM, the

petitioner/appellant was living in a luxurious accommodation. The report of the

SDM does not give any particulars of the fittings and fixtures installed in the

premises occupied by the petitioner/appellant. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain

as to on what basis the SDM termed the furniture fittings etc., installed in the

premises of the petitioner/appellant to be luxurious. The photographs filed by the

petitioner/appellant indicate that the furniture and gadgets etc. available in the

premises occupied by the petitioner/appellant cannot be said to be luxurious by any

standard. Even the TV set which is shown in the photographs filed by the

petitioner/appellant appears to be an old outdated TV. I can also see seepage on the

walls of the accommodation occupied by the petitioner/appellant. In nut shell,

there is no evidence which would indicate that the petitioner/appellant was leading

a luxurious life.

7. As regards income of the petitioner/appellant, it has come in evidence that he

is getting salary of about Rs.60,000/- per month. According to the learned counsel

for the petitioner/appellant, he filed income-tax return for the assessment year

2010-2011, wherein he disclosed income of Rs.5,72,433/-.

8. The petitioner/appellant is not expected to sell everything he has with him, to

pay the prescribed Court fee. He need not be a pauper to obtain permission to sue

as an indigent person. What needs to be seen in such cases is as to whether, after

excluding the assets, which are exempt from attachment and the belongings which

are necessary to lead a dignified life, considering his family and social background,

the petitioner/appellant is in a position to pay the prescribed Court fee or not. In the

case before this Court, prima facie, it appears to me that even if all the assets of the

petitioner are taken into consideration, though the law excludes from consideration

those assets which are exempt from attachment, the figure will not even close to Rs

61 lakh which is prescribed court fee payable on the claimed amount.

The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to grant of permission to sue as an

indigent person.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is hereby set aside

and the petitioner/appellant is permitted to sue as an indigent person. The petition

be registered as a plaint.

The OA 107/2011 stands disposed of in terms of this order.

CS(OS) No_____________/2012 Written statement be filed within four weeks and replication within two

weeks thereafter.

List before Joint Registrar on 1st February, 2013 for admission/denial of

documents.

List before Court on 18th March, 2013 for framing of issues.

V.K. JAIN, J DECEMBER 11, 2012/'sn'