Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalabai Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13921
1 MP-2230-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 8 th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2230 of 2024
KALABAI RAWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rinkesh Goyal - Advocate for the respondents No.5 to 9.
Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma - Govt. Advocate for the respondents
No.10/State.
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"(1) That, the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed
by the learned Trial Court may kindly be please to set-aside/quashed.
(2) That, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 33 Rule 1
of CPC may kindly be allowed and petitioner be exempt from filing the
court fees in the suit.
(3) That, other suitable writ order or direction for doing justice in the
matter may kindly be issued. Cost may kindly be granted."
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned
trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order. As per the report appended
on the record, it reveals that the annual income of the petitioner is Rs.80,000/- and
personal income is Rs.20,000/- per year. Therefore, learned trial court has erred in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13921
2 MP-2230-2024
assuming that the petitioner/plaintiff is capable of paying the Court fees which is
Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside. He relied upon
a judgment in the case of Mohan Singh Vs. Ravindranath and others, 2011
(I)MPWN 19.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.5
to 9 and respondent No.10 have opposed the application on the ground that the
learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record.
5. The provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 and 2 are as follows:-
"1. Suit may be instituted by (indigent person) - Subject to the
following provisions, any suit may be instituted by (an indigent
person).
[Explanation I - A person is an indigent person,-
(a) if he is not possessed of sufficient means (other than
property exempt) from attachment in execution of a decree
and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the
fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or
(b) where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to
property worth one thousand rupees other than the property
exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and the
subject-matter of the suit.
Explanation II.- Any property which is acquired by a person after the
presentation of his application for permission to sue as an indigent
person, and before the decision of the application, shall be taken into
account in considering the question whether or not the applicant is an
indigent person.
Explanation III- Where the plaintiff sues in a representative capacity,
the question whether he is an indigent person shall be determined with
reference to the means possessed by him in such capacity.]
[1A. Inquiry into the means of an indigent person - Every inquiry into
the question whether or not a person is an indigent person shall be
made, in the first instance, by the chief ministerial officer of the Court,
unless the Court otherwise directs, and the Court may adopt the report
of such officer as its own finding or may itself make an inquiry into the
question.]
2. Contents of application - Every application for permission to sue as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13921
3 MP-2230-2024
[an indigent person] shall contain the particulars required in regard to
plaints in suits; a schedule of any movable or immovable property
belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof, shall be
annexed thereto; and it shall be signed and verified in the manner
prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings."
6. The perusal of impugned order shows that the learned trial Court has rejected
the application of petitioner under Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC inter alia on the ground
that the application has not been filed as per the provisions of Order 33 Rule 22.
The applicant/petitioner has not submitted the list of movable and immovable
property and no estimated value of it has been shown in that schedule, nor there is
a verification of such property. Therefore, the application in want of compliance
of the provisions has been dismissed.
7. Perusal of provision of Order 33 Rule 2 of CPC, it reveals the
petitioner/applicant is under an obligation to file a schedule of movable and
immovable property belonging to the applicant with the estimated value thereof
and such schedule be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for signing and
verification of pleadings. However, admittedly, no such compliance has been
made by the petitioner/applicant before learned trial Court. Therefore, the
rejection of application by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or
illegal.
8. The impugned order does not warrant any interference of this Court.
9. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mani
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13921
4 MP-2230-2024
