LexR.V. DEV @ R. VASUDEVAN NAIR versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.
~
A
R.V. DEV @ R. VASUDEVAN NAIR
"--...
"
CHIEF SECRET ARY, GOVT. OF KERALA AND ORS.
MAY 15, 2007
B
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
I
c
Or XXXI 11, r.11 r!w r. I 0-lnterpretation of-Suit in forma pauper is-
Held, under r.11 plaintiff has to pay court fee in either of the four situations
namely, (i) when plaintiff failed in the suit, or (ii) when plaintiff is dispaupered
or (iii) when suit is withdrawn or (iv) when suit is dismissed in circumstances
specified in clauses {a) and (b)-As in three out of the four contingencies,
order has to be passed when suit comes to an end, it will be fair construction
D to hold that clauses (a) and (b) refer to the fourth condition-Each situation
is distinct and different-Word "or" is distinctive and each case m~st be
given effect to independent of the other cases.
Words and Phrases:
E
"or" occurring in or.33, r.ll CPC-Connotation of
Appellant-plaintiff filed, as an indigent person, a suit for damages
against the State Government The suit was dismissed as barred by limitation.
The appeal filed informa pauperis was also dismissed by the High Court On
an application filed by the plaintiff-appellant for clarification of the appellate
F order, the High Court held that a person who was permitted to sue as an
indigent person was liable to pay the requisite court fee if he failed in the
suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present appeal.
It was contended for the appellant that in the instant case in view of
clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 11 of Order XXXID, the provisions of Rule 11 were
G not attracted and, therefore, Rule 11 would have no application.
-
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Rule 11 of Order XXXIII, of the Code of Civil Procedure,
"
H
886
RV DEV@R. VASUDEVAN NAIR'· CHIEF SECRETARY. GO\T Of KERALA [SB SlNHA.J )
887
_}
1908 directing the pauper plaintiff to pay the court fee can be made in the A
four different situations, namely, (i) when the plaintiff failed in the suit; (ii)
where the plaintiff is dispaupered; (iii) where the suit is withdrawn; or (iv)
where the suit is dismissed under the circumstances specified in clause (a)
or clause (b). When, therefore, the plaintiff fails in the suit or plaintiff is
dispaupered, the same has nothing to do with dismissal of the suit under the B
circumstances specified in clauses (a) and (b). Clauses (a) and (b) mentioned
in Rule 11 would be attracted only when the suit is, inter alia, dismissed by
reason of the contingencies contained in clauses (a) and (b). Clauses (a) and
(b) will have no bearing and/or relevance, when a suit is dismissed on merit
'
or when the plaintiffis dispaupered. !Para 9 and It I (891-A, B, DI
)
1.2. For the purpose of construction of Rule 11 of Order XXXIII, it is c
necessary to give effect to all the conditions mentioned therein. As in three
out of the four contingencies in the Rule, the order has to be passed when the
suit comes to an end, it will be a fair construction to hold that clauses (a) and
(b) refer to the fourth condition and that they cannot be held to be attracted
even in the former case. Each situation is distinct and different. The word D
"or" is disjunctive and thus must be given effect to independent of the other
cases. (Para 12] (891-E-F]
Ram Saran and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR (1959) Patna 384,
held inapplicable.
E
1.3. In a case where Rule 11 of Order XXXllI is attracted, the Court
cannot direct the defendant to pay the court fee and it must be paid by the
plaintiff or the co-plaintiff. (Para 14] [892-E)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2536 of2007.
F
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2003 of the High Court
ofKerala at Emakulam in CMP. 1323/2003 in A.S. No. 156/1994.
A. Raghunath for the Appellant.
P.V. Dinesh, Sindhu T.P. and K.R. Sasiprabhu for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'>
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Interpretation of the provisions of Order XXXIII Rule 10 and Order H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 6 S.C.R.
A XXXlll Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in the State of
Kerala is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order
dated 11.7.20003 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Emakulam in CMP
No. 1323 of 2003 in A.S. No. 156 of 1994. Appellant herein filed a suit for
damages against the State of Kerala inter alia on the premise that he had Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.