Virendra Baba Chaudhary vs Madanchandra Pawaiya
2023 Latest Caselaw 15227 MP

                                              1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                                         BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                          ON THE 14th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                        MISC. PETITION NO. 4226 of 2023

       BETWEEN:-

       VIRENDRA BABA CHAUDHARY S/O LATE SHRI
       KANHAIYA LAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION: MANDIR POOJARI R/O GANDHI ROAD
       KUMHAR PURA MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
       PRADESH)
                                                                         .....PETITIONER

       (BY SHRI VIJAY SUNDARAM - ADVOCATE)

       AND
1.     MADANCHANDRA PAWAIYA S/O LATE SHRI
       MURARILAL PAWAIYA R/O MAHARANI LAKSHMIBAI
       ROAD GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) )
2.     SMT.VIMLA RAJORIYA W/O SHRI RAMKUMAR
       RAJORIYA R/O 123 SHARDA VIHAR CITY CENTER,
       GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.     MANISH SAXENA S/O SHRI KALICHARAN R/O
       KUMAHAR PURA, THATIPUR GWALIOR (MADHYA
       PRADESH)
4.     BANTI RATHORE S/O SHRI PHOOL SINGH
       KUMHARPURA THATIPUR GWALIOR (MADHYA
       PRADESH)
5.     NAGAR NIGAM COMMISSIONER, NAGAR NIGAM
       GWALIOR OFFICE NEARBY STADIUM GWALIOR
       (MADHYA PRADESH)
6.     STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, OFFICE
       COLLECTORATE,     CITY  CENTER,   GWALIOR
       (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS

       (BY SHRI RAGHVENDRA DIXIT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2

     This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                  ORDER

1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by order dated 04-07-2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the trial Court whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of CPC has been dismissed.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he has instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction as well as cancellation of sale deed against the respondents. Along with plaint, petitioner moved an application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to sue the suit as an indigent person. It is further submitted that learned trial Court without considering the material aspects of the matter and the fact that petitioner does not have sufficient means to pay the court fee, rejected the said application. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vimalchand and Ors. Vs. Gyanmala, 1988 JLJ

526.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the submission and while supporting the impugned order passed by the trial Court, submitted that according to the enquiry report, petitioner cannot be accepted to be an indigent person, therefore, learned trial Court rightly rejected the said application of the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

5. This is a case where petitioner is taking exception to the order dated 04-07-2023 passed by the trial Court whereby his application under

Order XXXIII Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected by the trial Court.

6. On close scrutiny, it appears that petitioner does not fall under the status of being indigent because he had two houses in his name but he transferred them to his sons and as per the report of Tahsildar he is living with one of his sons. Although he claimed himself to be an indigent person without any resources to sustain himself and living in a temple but this appears to be mischievous endeavour of petitioner to declare himself as indigent person and thereafter pursue litigation.

7. If the contentions of petitioner are accepted then it would have cascading effect because in that condition petitioner would unleash spree of litigations against many people without being accounted, so far as payment of Court fee is concerned.

8. This benevolent mechanism is devised to give relief to the really needy people who intend to initiate litigation for their legitimate rights but could not pay court fee. Here, no such exigency exists prima facie. No case for interference is made out. Trial Court rightly considered this fact and passed the impugned order. The judgment relied by the petitioner's counsel moves in different factual realm.

9. Petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

(ANAND PATHAK) Anil* JUDGE

ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT

KUMAR OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51dae 27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f,

CHAURASIY pseudonym=F7E569EA2A8955818DF870B0C5 0764B46C526E80, serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F06F4 A296DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD8CBCC9C2

A 446E, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Date: 2023.09.15 19:51:14 +05'30'