IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 631 of 2008() --------------------- OP.62/2003 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- POOVALI ASOKAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, AGED 43 YEARS, POOVALI SADANAM, PINARAYI AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PARAPRAM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------ MANIYATH ROSHNI, W/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED 36 YEARS, ROSHINI SADAN, ERENHOLI AMSOM, VADAKKUMBAD DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1871/2008 IN C.R.P.NO.631/2008 14.8.2008 DISMISSED Sd/- M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge /true copy/ P.S to Judge M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J. ======================= C.R.P No.631 of 2008 ======================= Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is filed by respondent in O.P.62/2003 on the file of Sub Court, Thalassery under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order passed by the Sub Judge permitting respondent to sue as an indigent person. When the O.P was originally allowed and respondent was permitted to sue as an indigent person, petitioner filed C.R.P.1317/2004 before this court contending that respondent is not an indigent person and permission should not have been granted. Under Ext.A1 judgment dated 24.2.2006, the earlier order was set aside and trial court was directed to reconsider the question afresh. Learned Sub Judge thereafter passed the impugned order dated 25.3.2008 permitting respondent to sue as an indigent person and converted the petition to a suit. It is challenged in this revision petition CRP No.631/2008 2 contending that learned Sub Judge did not properly consider Annexure A2 report submitted by the Tahsildar, Thalassery disclosing that respondent is having sufficient properties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that under Annexure A1 order this court set aside the earlier order as it was found that question whether respondent has disclosed all the properties were not properly considered by the learned Sub Judge and only report of the Tahsildar, Kannur was obtained and no report from the Tahsildar, Thalassery was obtained and when Annexure A2 report submitted by the Tahsildar establish that respondent is having other properties permission should not have been granted. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. The learned Sub Judge has considered the aspect CRP No.631/2008 3 in the proper perspective and found that respondent is not owning property or other means sufficient enough to pay the court fee. In such circumstance, Revision Petition is dismissed. M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. /08 --------------------- ORDER MARCH,2008