1998 (2) TMI 613 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Application for de-pauperizing the plaintiff under Order XXXIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Plaintiff's financial status and means to pay court fees.
3. Allegations of improper conduct and fraud by the plaintiff.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for de-pauperizing the plaintiff under Order XXXIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

The defendants filed a Notice of Motion under Order XXXIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to de-pauperize the plaintiff and compel him to pay the court fees required at the time of filing the suit. The plaintiff had initially been granted permission to sue as an indigent person under Order XXXIII, Rule 1, which was later converted into a suit by the Prothonotary and Senior Master.

2. Plaintiff's financial status and means to pay court fees:

The plaintiff claimed he had no sufficient means to pay the court fees, stating he received only Rs. 400 per month from the Cancer Patients' Aid Society and had no other income or property. However, during cross-examination, it was revealed that the plaintiff earned additional income from private tuitions and had shares worth approximately Rs. 12,000. The plaintiff admitted to having a Savings Bank Account and a share in his father's immovable property and gold, which he had not disclosed initially. The court found these admissions contradicted the plaintiff's earlier statements and demonstrated that he had sufficient means to pay the court fees.

3. Allegations of improper conduct and fraud by the plaintiff:

The defendants argued that the plaintiff had committed fraud by suppressing material facts about his financial status and assets, thus misleading the court to gain an exemption from paying court fees. The court agreed with the defendants, noting that the plaintiff's conduct was improper as he failed to disclose his true financial situation and assets, including his share in immovable property, gold, and shares. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's actions amounted to playing fraud on the court and causing loss to the Exchequer.

Conclusion:

The court found that the plaintiff had indeed suppressed material facts and misrepresented his financial status to obtain permission to sue as an indigent person. Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiff be de-pauperized under Order XXXIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and directed him to pay the court fees within two weeks. The Notice of Motion was made absolute, and the matter was adjourned with no order as to costs.