Ponnusamy vs M/S.Amba Eletronics
2022 Latest Caselaw 7030 Mad

                                                                       C.M.A.No.612 of 2018

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                               DATED: 05.04.2022
                                                    CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
                                            C.M.A.No.612 of 2018 and
                                              C.M.P.No.5402 of 2018

                     Ponnusamy                                              ...Appellant
                                                       Vs.

                     1.M/s.Amba Eletronics,
                       Rep. By its Partner P.Balasubramanian,
                       Office at No.45, G.V.Ramasamy Gounder Street,
                       Rathinapuri, Coimbatore – 27.

                     2.P.Balasubramaniam

                     3.P.Kanakarathinam

                     4.M.Selvakumar

                     5.S.Muthiah

                     6.Ponnusamy

                     7.Gurusamy

                     8.M/s.Punjab and Sind Bank,
                      Rep. By its Authorised Officer,
                       Head Office at Bank House,
                       21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi.
                       And Branch Office situated at
                       424, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore – 642 001.


                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     C.M.A.No.612 of 2018



                     9.T.Murugan

                     10.The District Collector,
                       Coimbatore District,
                       Coimbatore.                                                      ..Respondents



                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of
                     C.P.C., against the order and decree dated 03.11.2017 in P.O.P.No.308 of
                     2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.


                                           For Appellant      : Mr.R.Rajarajan
                                           For Respondents    : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel for R3
                                                                Mr.K.Chandrasekaran
                                                                 for R2, R4, R5, R6, R7 & R9
                                                                Dr.S.Suriya,
                                                                Additional Government Pleader
                                                                                     for R10
                                                                No Appearance – R1 & R8




                                                    JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed questioning an order dated 03.11.2017

in P.O.P.No.308 of 2014, which had been filed by the appellant herein

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.612 of 2018

seeking permission to institute a suit in forma pauperis / as an indigent

person and seeking to avoid payment of Court fees and rather seeking a

direction that the Court fees can be deducted from the decree if at all passed

in favour of the appellant.

2.The facts appear to be a little complicated but they can be

reduced in simple terms. The appellant was a partner of the 1st respondent.

The learned counsel says that the appellant is a sleeping partner. The 1st

respondent has other partners namely, respondents 2nd, 3rd and 4th

respondents. The partnership firm wanted loan and therefore, for obtaining

loan, title deeds had to be deposited. The title deeds of the properties of the

appellant were deposited with the 8th respondent / Punjab and Sind Bank

and loan was obtained by the 1st respondent partnership firm.

3.On the receipt of the loan amount, it is alleged by the appellant

that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents / other partners had purchased a property,

which is now the subject matter of a suit, which has been instituted by the

appellant. The loan was not repaid. Therefore, the appellant was under

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.612 of 2018

compulsion to repay the loan to obtain back his title deeds. He repaid the

loan and got back the title deeds.

4.Thereafter, he had instituted the suit seeking a declaration that

he is the owner of the property, which was purchased by the 2 nd, 3rd and 4th

respondents on the basis of the loan, which they had received from the 8 th

respondent bank. These are all issues, which can be decided only during the

course of trial.

5.The appellant then filed an application seeking exemption from

payment of Court fees claiming indigency and claiming that he does not

have the means to pay a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- which was the amount to be

paid as Court fees in view of the valuation of the suit for declaration and

injunction.

6.During the course of the order now questioned in this particular

appeal, the learned District Judge, Coimbatore had observed that quite apart

from the avocation of the appellant as a member of a particular political

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.612 of 2018

party holding the post of a Councilor, the appellant also has means namely,

he has a house in his possession and had therefore rejected his claim that he

should be declared as an indigent and that the suit should be permitted to be

instituted in forma pauperis. Questioning that particular order, the appellant

is before this Court.

7.I have heard Mr.R.Rajarajan, learned counsel for the appellant,

Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent,

Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the 2nd, 4th to 7th and 9th

respondents and Dr.S.Suriya, Additional Government Pleader for 10th

respondent.

8.The order under appeal, proceeds on the basis of an enquiry

conducted by the Government / Collector of Coimbatore with respect to the

means of the appellant herein / plaintiff. It was found that the appellant was

the owner of a house. It was also found that the appellant was a member of

a political party and that the said political party had recognized the appellant

and had permitted him to contest the council elections and that he had also

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.612 of 2018

won the council elections. Naturally all this requires a flow of cash from

the appellant and therefore, it had been observed that he should also pay

some money towards the Court fees in accordance with the valuation of the

suit.

9.I find no infirmity in that particular reasoning. It would only be

advisable that the appellant pays necessary Court fees and proceeds further

with the suit. The suit is pending without being numbered for the past eight

years, and it would only be advantageous that it proceeds on a fast track on

payment of Court fees. The defendants would also have been put to

hardship in this period of eight years since they would not have known

whether the suit is going to be taken on file or not taken on file. Therefore,

their interest will also be have to be balanced.

10.A direction is given that the appellant should pay the necessary

Court fees on or before 30.06.2022 and proceed further with the suit. The

Registry in Coimbatore may number the suit if it is otherwise in order and if

it confirms to the various regulations required for numbering a civil suit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.612 of 2018

11.With the said observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

dismissed. The appellant is directed to pay the Court fees as aforesaid. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.04.2022 kkn Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

To-

The Principal District Court, Coimbatore.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.612 of 2018

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

KKN

C.M.A.No.612 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.5402 of 2018

05.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis