Uttarakhand High Court
2 September vs Mohini And Ors on 2 September, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7755
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2556 of 2025
02 September, 2025
Shubham Yadav --Petitioner
Versus
Mohini and Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the
petitioner/defendant.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been moved by the
petitioner/defendant challenging the orders dated
19.11.2024 and 05.05.2025 passed by learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Rudrapur, District Udham
Singh Nagar in Original Suit No.239 of 2024 Mohini
Vs. Shubham Yadav and Others.
2. From perusal of the record, it transpires
that Original Suit No.239 of 2024 Mohini Vs.
Shubham Yadav and Others, has been instituted by
the respondent No.1-plaintiff in the Court of learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar. After filing the Original Suit, an
application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC has been
moved by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for
permitting her to contest the suit as an indigent
person. On the said application, report regarding
financial status of the respondent No.1/plaintiff was
called by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)
2025:UHC:7755
and after obtaining the said report, vide order dated
19.11.2024, the application under Order 33 Rule 1
CPC has been granted and the respondent No.1/
plaintiff was permitted to contest the Suit as an
indigent person.
3. The petitioner/defendant moved an
CPC for withdrawal of the permission to sue as
indigent person granted to the respondent No.1/
plaintiff by the impugned judgment and order dated
19.11.2024. Vide impugned judgment and order
dated 05.05.2025, the said application Paper No.25C
was rejected by the learned Trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/
defendant submits that the respondent No.1/plaintiff
has got sufficient means to contest the Suit after
paying the Court Fee and it is submitted by him that
she has got more than Rs.1,000/- in her account,
and therefore, the permission cannot be granted her
to contest the suit as indigent person. Apart from
this, he further submits that the respondent No.1/
plaintiff has got three or four mobile numbers in her
name along with Google Account and her son is
studying in Jaycee's Public School in Class X and
paying a fee of Rs.4,350/- and further she is having
a piece of land measuring about 2200 Sq. Feet at
District Moradabad.
5. I have perused the impugned orders passed
by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). The
permission to contest the Suit as indigent person has
been given by the learned Trial Court to the
2025:UHC:7755
respondent No.1/plaintiff after calling for the report
from the Amin/Court Officer, and therefore, the
learned Trial Court did not find any reason to
interfere in the said permission and accordingly, the
said application under Order 33 Rule 9 CPC filed by
the petitioner/defendant was rejected.
6. Having considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and
having gone through the entire material available on
record as well as the impugned orders, this Court too
find that no interference is required exercising its
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is
dismissed in-limine.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.09.2025
PN
PREETI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38
331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FA
E064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC,
cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.09.03 10:35:13 +05'30'
