IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 FAO.No. 82 of 2007() -------------------- IOP.22/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------------- GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, AMBILI NIVAS, II/864, K.K.ROAD, BHARAT MATHA COLLEGE P.O.,KOCHI-682 021. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASHROF SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------ RAJAPPAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, BINDU VIHAR,CHAKKUNGAL ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025. ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- F.A.O.No.82 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. This is an appeal against the order dated 18-11-2006 in I.O.P.No.22/2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam. By the impugned order the petition for permission to file the suit as an indigent person was dismissed. Mainly two grounds are stated in the order: (1) the petitioner did not value the immovable property; and (2) the petitioner did not disclose the movables, in particular, the furniture. As far as the first reason is concerned, we find that the petitioner had submitted before the court during his examination that the immovable property would value around Rs.10 lakhs. Therefore, there is no suppression as such. As far as the movables are concerned, the explanation is that the petitioner had disclosed the movables belonging to him and the movables referred to in the report of the Village Officer and in the objection of the respondent actually belonged to his wife. Be that as it may, in a petition for permission to file a suit as an indigent person, even if the petition is allowed, it is on deferred payment of court fee. This is a suit for recovery of money. In fact, court fee is the first charge if the suit is decreed and if not, the F.A.O.No.82 of 2007 -:2:- State is entitled to recover the same even by recourse to the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. Law does not compel a person to dispose of the immovable or movable property so as to secure sufficient means to file a suit. On the contrary, law enables a person to move the court for permission to file a suit as an indigent person, if he is not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court fee other than the suit property or other than the decree to be obtained in the suit. Since the appellant does not have sufficient means other than the residential house and the movables therein, partly belonging to himself and the rest belonging to his wife, we are of the view that the appellant should be permitted to prosecute the suit as an indigent person. Accordingly, we set aside the order under appeal. I.O.P.No.22/2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam is allowed. However, we make it clear that it will be open to the State or the respondent to move the trial court under Order XXXIII Rule 9, in case there is any change in the circumstances. I.A.No.866/2007: Dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. --------------------------- F.A.O.No.82 of 2007 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 16th January, 2009