AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Seth, J.—The present application has been filed under Order 44 Rule 1 of the CPC to prosecute this appeal as an indigent person. The applicant is the unsuccessful plaintiff under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC, which is made applicable to the appeals. It is provided as under:-
Order 33(1) -
Suits may be instituted by indigent person-Subject to the following provisions, any suit may be instituted by an indigent person.
Explanation - 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.
Undisputedly the case of the applicant would fall under Clause (b) and as per her own showing applicant is in possession of a property worth more than Rs. 1,000/-.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the annual income of the destitute is less than Rs. 6,000/-, therefore, she be exempted from payment of the court fee in view of notification issued by the State Govt. u/s 34 of the Court Fees Act.
The law on this point is well settled and it is clear that the notification issued by the State Govt. u/s 34 of the Court Fees Act, is made applicable only to the original suit and not to the appeals. In this view of the matter learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted 4 weeks time to pay the requisite court fee as per the valuation of the appeal, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the court.