LexMATHAI M. PAIKEDAY versus C.K. ANTONY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 7 S.C.R. 230 MATHAI M. PAIKEDAY v. C.K. ANTONY (Civil Appeal No. 5493 of 2011) JULY 11, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: c 0. 33, r.1, Explanation I, and 0.44. r.1 - Instituting of suit or appeal as an indigent person - Expression 'sufficient means' - Connotation of- A retired Dy. Conservator of Forest drawing monthly pension of Rs.10,5001- instituting appeals against money decrees with prayer for permitting him to 0 institute the appeals as an indigent person - Prayer allowed by High Court - HELD: The expression "sufficient means" in 0. 33, r. 1 contemplates the atility or capacity of a person in the ordinary course to raise money by available lawful means to pay court fee - Financial assistance received from the E family members or close friends can be taken into account in order to determine whether a person is possessed of sufficient means or is indigent to pay requisite court fee - In the instant case, it was stated by the judgment-debtor before the High Court that his son was employed abroad - He did not deny that his son sends him money - He failed to F establish that the amount of money received from his son was not sufficient to pay the court fee - Non-production of bank account details amounts to suppression of fact and an adverse inference can be drawn against the judgment-debtor that he is receiving a substantial or sufficient amount of G money from his son - Therefore, the amount of:money received by the judgment-debtor from his son and by way of pension, amounts to 'sufficient means' to pay court fee which disentitles him to be an indigent person under 0. 33,r. 1 and 0. 44 r. 1 - In the facts and circumstances of the case, the H 230 MATHAI M. PAIKEDAY v. C.K. ANTONY 231 judgment-debtor cannot be declared as an indigent person A in order to prosecute the regular first appeals before the High Court - Impugned order of High Court set aside. The appellant filed two suits for recovery of money against the respondent, a retired Deputy. Conserv.ator of B Forest drawing a pension of Rs. 10,5001-. The suits were decreed. The respondent filed regular first appeals before the High Court along with petitions to prosecute the said appeals as an indigent person under 0. 44, r. 1 CPC. The judgment-debtor was permitted to prosecute regular first C appeals as an indigent person. In the instant appeals filed by the plaintiff, the issue before the Court was: whether the respondent was an indigent person as not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court fees and, consequently, entitled to avail the D benefits under 0. 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The object and purpose of O. 33 and 0. 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are to enable a E person, who is ridden by poverty, or not possessed of sufficient means to pay court fee, to seek justice. Order 33 and 0. 44 exempts such indigent person from paying requisite court fee at the first instance and allows him to institute suit or prosecute· appeal in forrna pauperis. [para 12] [237-B-C] F A.A. Haja Muniuddin v. Indian .Railways, 1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 72 = (1992) 4 SCC 736; Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction, 2001 (3) SCR 580 = (2001)_ G 5 SCC 22; and R. V. Dev v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Kera/a, 2007"(6) 1SCR 886 = (2007) 5 SCC 698 - referred to. Corpus Juris Secundum (20 C.J.S. Costs § 93); and American Jurisprudence (20 Am. Jur. 2d Costs § 100) - referred to. ..~ H 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R. A 1.2. The indigent person, in terms of Explanation I to r.1 of 0. 33 CPC is one who is either not possessed of sufficient means to pay court fee when such fee is prescribed by law, or is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees when such court t'ee is not prescribed. B In both the cases, the property exempted from the attachment in execution of a decree and the subject- matter of the suit shall not be taken into account to calculate financial worth or ability of such indigent person. Moreover, the factors such as person's c employment status and total_ income including retirement benefits in the form of pension, ownership of realizable unencumbered assets, and person's total indebtness and financial assistance received from the family member or close friends can be taken into account in order to 0 determine whether a person is possesse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.