IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 FAO.No. 339 OF 2007() --------------------- OP.5/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------------- KRISHNA PILLAI, KRISHNANJALI FROM LEELA SADANAM, PADANAYARKULANGARA, THEKKUM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 9 ------------------------------------------ 1. PRASANNAN PILLAI, KALATHIL VEEDU, MUZHANGODI MURI, KALLELIBHAGAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PRESENT ADDRESS : D.BABU (PRASANNAN PILLAI), POST BOX NO.752, SOHAR-31, SUTANATE OF OMAN DUBAI. 2. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, RAJ BHAVAN (KANNIMELVILA), MUZHANGODI MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. MANSOOR, ANITHA DALE, KOZHIKOTTU MEKKUMMURI, AYANIVELIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 4. HARIKUMAR, THEKKEVEETTIL, KUZHITHURA MURIYIL, ALLAPPAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. FAO 339/2007 2 5. K.P.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, VRINDAVANAM, PULIYOORVANCHI, THEKKUMMURIYIL, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 6. BIJI JOSEPH (SAMUEL JOSEPH), THARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PADANAYARKULANGARA THEKKUMMURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 7. ANUKRISHNAN, SREENILAYAM, NEENDAKARA POSTAL ATHIRTHIYIL, NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. M.SALEEM, IDAKKULANGARA THATTUMVATHUKKAL VEETTIL, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 9. JOHNSON VAIDYAN, THAIVILA THEKKATHIL, KADAPPAMURIYIL, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.VANAJA MADHAVAN SMT.S.AMBIKA DEVI THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & V. K. MOHANAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. NO. 339 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Additional Sub Court, Kollam in O.P. (Pauper) 5 of 2006. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed an application to sue the suit as an indigent person. The respondents entered appearance and filed objection. Both sides were heard. 3. The appellant was admittedly the owner of the property. The suit is one for setting aside the sale of the property. Admittedly, consideration paid as per the impugned document is Rs. 14 lakhs. Necessarily, the appellant has to explain as to how the consideration received namely, an amount of Rs. 14 lakhs, is completely spent within a short span of time so as to inspire confidence in the mind of the court that at least prima facie the petition to sue as an indigent person is maintainable. But the appellant failed to do so. The court below, in such circumstances, was not prepared to accept the contention that the petitioner/appellant is a person having no FAO 339/2007 :2: means to pay court fee and accordingly, dismissed the petition. It is against the said order that the present appeal is preferred. 4. Learned counsel Sri. B. Krishnamani submitted that the consideration received as per the document was directly paid to the Bank. But he was not able to explain to us as to why the amount was paid to the Bank and whether the appellant owes any amount to the Bank etc. As a matter of fact, when notice was issued as contemplated by Rule 7, the petitioner ought to have been ready to adduce evidence in the matter. Even before us, the appellant was not able to explain based on the document or by any other material to convince us prima facie that an amount of Rs. 14 lakhs never reached his hands; but directly went to the Bank that too, in discharge of any debt towards the Bank. This is purely a matter within the knowledge of the appellant. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. However, we give one month's time to pay the requisite court fee as per the plaint. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) V. K. MOHANAN, (JUDGE) knc/-