J.Mohamed Mohideen Rowthar vs M/S.Jayaram Silks
2021 Latest Caselaw 1349 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1349 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 January, 2021

Madras High Court

J.Mohamed Mohideen Rowthar vs M/S.Jayaram Silks on 21 January, 2021

                                                                                 C.M.A.No.73 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 21.01.2021

                                                       CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                 C.M.A.No.73 of 2021
                                                         and
                                                 C.M.P.No.568 of 2021

                     J.Mohamed Mohideen Rowthar                                  ..Appellant

                                                          Vs.
                     1.M/s.Jayaram Silks
                       A Partnership Firm by partners

                     2.J.Kannammal
                     3.K.J.Prakash
                     4.K.J.Dheepan Kumar
                     5.The District Collector,
                       Salem District,
                       Salem – 636 001.                                          ..Respondents

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 104 Read with
                     Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal order dated
                     22.04.2014 in P.O.P.No.173 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District
                     Judge, Salem.


                                      For Appellant   :         Mr.V.Sekar
                                      For Respondents :         D.Veerasekaran




                     1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                 C.M.A.No.73 of 2021

                                                   JUDGMENT

The Fair and Decreetal order dated 22.04.2014 in P.O.P.No.173 of

2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Salem, is under

challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The appellant instituted a suit for Recovery of money to the

tune of Rs.38,57,000/-. Along with the suit, the appellant filed

P.O.P.No.173 of 2013, seeking permission to institute the suit as an

indigent person. The trial Court adjudicated the P.O.P Petition and

rejected the contention of the appellant, stating that he is not an indigent

person and accordingly, directed to pay the Court fee and institute the

suit. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

strenuously contended that the appellant is not in a position to pay the

Court fee, though it is stated that he is possessing a house and now it is

under occupation of his sons, who are practising Lawyers. In view of the

fact that he has no money to pay the Court fee, he may be exempted

from payment of Court fee.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.73 of 2021

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

objected the said contentions by stating that the appellant is having

means to pay the Court fee and in order to harass the respondents, the

P.O.P is filed to file a suit without even paying the Court fee.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that in order to permit a

plaintiff to institute a suit as an indigent person, the Court has to satisfy

itself that a person, who seeks permission to institute a Pauper Original

petition, is genuinely not capable of paying the Court fee. Not

possessing the ready cash is not a ground to grant permission to institute

a suit as pauper. If a person is having property and the family is capable

of paying the Court fee, then permission cannot be granted under Order

33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. In the present case, the trial Court elaborately adjudicated the

issues with reference to the facts as well as the evidences. The trial

Court arrived a conclusion that the appellant had not produced any

acceptable evidence for the purpose of granting permission to institute a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.73 of 2021

suit as an indigent person. In this regard, the findings in Paragraph 13

passed by the trial Court is relevant, which is extracted hereunder:

“13/ nkw;go k/rh/1d; rhl;rpaj;ij nehf;Fk;nghJ tpj;ah efupy; tPL cs;sJ vd;gJk;. kDjhuhpd; kfd;fs; tHf;fwp"h; bjhHpy;bra;J tUfpwhh;fs; vd;gJk;. mf;ucwhuj;jpy; cs;s brd;l;uy; t';fpapy;

mtUf;Ffzf;F cs;sJ vd;gJk;. KUnfrd; vd;gth; jd;F U: 6.00.000-? fld; ju ntz;Lk;

vd;gjhy;. mtUf;F vjpuhf fhnrhiy tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;J. nryk; Fw;wtpay; ePjpj;Jiw eLth; vd; 1 ePjpkd;wj;jpy; epYitapy; cs;sJ vd;gJk; bjhpa tUtjhy; kDjhuUf;F ePjpkd;wf; fl;lzk; brYj;j trjp ,y;iy vd;w Tw;W Vw;ff;Toajhf ,y;iy/ kDjhuUf;F ePjpkd;wf; fl;lzk;brYj;j nghjpa trjp ,y;iy vd;gij fhl;l Mjhuk;

jhf;fy; bra;atpyi ; y/”

7. Perusal of the finding reveal that the sons of the appellant are

legal Practitioners and as per deposition of P.W.1, the appellant is

having a house at Vidhya Nagar. When the appellant was not in a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.73 of 2021

position to establish before the trial Court that he is an indigent person

and the trial Court made a finding that the sons of the appellant are

practising lawyers and the appellant is possessing a house, this Court of

an opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the

trial Court. Contrarily, considered the issues in consonance with the

established legal principles and there is no infirmity as such.

8. Accordingly, the Fair and Decreetal order dated 22.04.2014 in