1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8405 OF 2009 Sau.Kamalbai Rupansingh Warma ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Ramkrushna Raghunath Dhumal ..RESPONDENT ..... Mr. M.K. Deshpande, advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B. Deshpande, advocate for respondent. ..... CORAM : R.M.BORDE,J DATE : 26th August, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Jalna, on 1.10.2009 in M.A.R.J.I. No.27/2009 below Exhibit-1, whereby the permission is accorded to the respondent- Trust to prosecute the suit as indigent person. 2. It is contended by the respondent in an application tendered to the Court under Order 33 Rule 1 seeking permission to sue as indigent person that the property belonging to the trust was got transferred by the defendant by securing registered 2 sale deed from the plaintiff-trust. The consideration amount fixed was Rs.6,50,000/- and the cheque towards the value of the property was handed over to the Trust at the time of registration of sale deed. The cheque issued by the defendant was dishonoured. Thus the trust has lost immovable property as well as consideration amount. It is contended by the respondent-plaintiff in the application that the trust does not possess sufficient funds to pay the court fees and as such requested the Court to accord permission to file the suit as indigent person. 3. Application tendered by the respondent- plaintiff was opposed by the petitioner-defendant by filing say. It is contended in the Say that the trust has sufficient income and as such, no permission is required to be accorded. 4. The Trial Court after considering the rival contentions raised by the parties was pleased to allow the application, which order is subjected to challenge in the present Petition. 3 5. I have perused the application as well as the impugned order passed by the trial Court below Exhibit-1. It has not been demonstrated by the petitioner-original defendant that the amount of consideration paid to the Trust by way of cheque has infact passed in favour of the trust. There is absolutely no material even prima facie to conclude that the Trust has received the amount of consideration. In these circumstances, the contentions raised by the respondent-Trust that they do not possess sufficient funds to prosecute the suit needs to be accepted. Apart from this aspect, it would be a matter of consideration as to what prejudice can be said to have been caused to defendant in the matter of the remittance of court fees to the State. 6. Petition is devoid of substance, hence stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE gas/wp8405.09