A.R. Durai vs M. Rajeswari

G. Rajasuria, J.—Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

A resume of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

The respondent herein sought permission before the lower Court to file the suit informa pauperis and consequently, it was numbered as POP 149

of 2007 and during enquiry she examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. Ultimately, the lower Court allowed the

respondent/plaintiff herein to file the suit informa pauperis. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the orders of the lower Court, this revision

has been focussed on various grounds inter alia thus:

The lower court has not appreciated the evidence properly; the respondent/plaintiff admitted candidly that per month she is spending a sum of Rs.

10,000/-, she has not disclosed anything about her source of income; She has also admitted about her owning of the property at Nadukombai

village, in addition to having admitted that she had sold a property for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. No particulars were furnished relating to those facts.

She also stated that she is owning a two wheeler. Her sons are well off. The lower court without properly analysing the evidence, blindly and

wrongly permitted the respondent/plaintiff to file the suit informa pauperis.

Whereas the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would develop and advance his argument that absolutely, there is no iota or shard,

shred or miniscule extent of evidence to highlight and spotlight the fact that the respondent/plaintiff is having any financial wherewithal to pay such a

huge court fee of Rs. 1 lakh and odd. It is for the revision petitioner to place before the Court as to what are the resources of the plaintiff to pay

such huge court fee. But the revision petitioner has not chosen to adduce any evidence. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

A bare perusal of the order of the lower court would demonstrate and display that it is far from satisfactory. The lower Court after narrating the

contentions of both sides, in a cryptic order, simply observed and remarked as though the payment of court fee is only deferred and that the same

could be ordered at a later stage. If such an approach is resorted to by the lower Court, in pauper O.P petition, no enquiry is possible at all. It is

well known that at the time of disposal of the case, the Court could direct as to who should bear the brunt in paying the Court fee, but that it does

not mean that the lower Court at the time of entertaining the suit informa pauperis is absolved from the duty or responsibility to probe into

pauperism of the petitioner concerned. The respondent/plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and she was cross-examined in extenso. During cross

examination, it has been culled out from her that she sold her house for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and she is also owning an immovable property in

Nadukombai village. But, she has not come forward with the details regarding all those indubitable and unassailable facts. Over and above, it was

suggested to her that a sum of Rs. 2 1/2 lakhs was paid by the Government to her, which she would disown simply. However, she impliedly

indicated that the said amount might have been received by her husband. She also bluntly said that she is not in good terms with her husband and

they are living separately from each other. It is a fact, which she admitted during cross that she is incurring an expenditure of Rs. 10,000/- per

month without disclosing her source of income. All these germane facts have not been considered by the lower Court.

Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the lower court should have probed into those factual aspects in detail. Accordingly, the order dated

23.04.2008 passed by the lower court in P.O.P. No. 149 of 2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower court, for being

considered concerning the pauperism of the respondent/plaintiff herein purely on merits after giving due opportunity of adducing additional evidence

to both sides. A reasoned order shall be passed by the lower court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.