AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.—Mr. N.B. Vishwanath, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents.
Even though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with consent, it, is taken up for final disposal.
The petitioner''s husband one C.P. Mallikarjuna and one Veeresh were friends. Veeresh had taken a loan of Rs. 3,25,000/- from the husband of the petitioner and in lieu of the said loan, had issued a cheque for an equal amount. The husband of the petitioner died on 24.09.2004. It appears, the petitioner requested Veeresh to repay the said loan amount. But however, he did not choose to respond to her request. Hence, a legal notice was issued to him. Even then, the amount was not paid. It appears, the petitioner has filed a suit on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chitradurga for recovery of the said amount. The claim of the petitioner is that she is a widow, poor and a helpless lady. She has absolutely no source of income to pay the Court fee. Hence she requested the respondent authority for legal assistance. The respondent authority referred the matter to the District Authority, Chitradurga for verification. One of the panel advocates, Smt. D.K. Sheela was directed to verify the plaint averments and also to look into the fact whether the suit filed would be in time. The respondent authority, having regard to the plaint averments as well as the opinion of the panel advocate has opined that the suit which is filed by the petitioner for recovery of the amount is barred by statute. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. It is to be noticed that during this interregnum, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 4173/2009 and the earlier order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the respondent for fresh disposal. In the circumstances, the impugned order is passed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the suit would certainly be in time, inasmuch as, from the date of issuance of the cheque and the date of the filing of the suit i.e., on 26.02.2008, it is certainly in time.
Mr. Vishwanath, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the opinion rendered by the Member Secretary.
I do not propose to foreclose the options of the petitioner to say whether the suit is to time or barred by time. Suffice it to say chat a prima facie opinion is rendered by the Member Secretary of the respondent that the suit is barred by time. Indeed, if the respondent is of the prima facie view that the suit is barred by time, the petitioner can certainly Invoke the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC to sue as an indigent person.
Reserving liberty to the petitioner to do so, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Mr. N.B. Vishwanath, learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within lour weeks.