IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 W.P(C).No. 31988 of 2008(G) -------------------------- POP.44/2007 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ JOY, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.AYINIKKAL THOMAS, MANNAMPETTA DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. SANTHOSH P. PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT: --------------------- BABY, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. UTHINIPARAMBAN AUGUSTIAN, MANNAMPETTA DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ W.P(c) No. 31988 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. Respondent, the widowed sister of the respondent filed suit as P.O.P No.44 of 2007 in the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakuda for realisation of money allegedly due to her from the petitioner. Court fee payable in the suit is Rs.27,320/-. She prayed that as she has no sufficient means to pay the requisite court fee, she be permitted to sue as an indigent person. Petitioner objected to the request. Respondent gave evidence as PW1. Petitioner examined the manager of the bank as RW1 and proved Exhibit X1. Respondent stated in her evidence that her husband is no more and that she is getting pension of Rs.2,200/ per month. RW1 was examined to show that the respondent is having a fixed deposit in his bank as stated in Exhibit X1. RW1 stated that the deposit is in the name of the minor son of the respondent and that though the fixed deposit is in the joint names of the respondent and her minor son, respondent shown in the F.D. only as guardian of her minor W.P(c) No. 31988/2008 2 son. Court below being satisfied that respondent is an indigent person, allowed her to sue as such. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent, is in possession of three gold bangles which was not stated in the Schedule of the petition. It is also stated by the learned counsel that the fact that respondent is getting pension is not stated in the petition. 4. Court below found from the evidence that respondent is an indigent person and hence, should be permitted to sue as such. When law requires that the respondent should be a person having no sufficient means to pay the court fee (here, the amount payable as court fee is Rs.27, 320/-) it did not mean that the respondent should be bereft of any income. There is no evidence to show that the respondent is possessed of such means as is sufficient to pay the requisite court fee. As such, no question of any suppression of material fact is involved. It is not as if the respondent is exonerated from payment of court fee forever. It is only that payment of court fee is deferred. Primarily, question of payment of court fee is a matter between the respondent W.P(c) No. 31988/2008 3 and the Government. Government has not challenged the impugned order. I do not find any reason to admit this writ petition as no jurisdictional error or illegality requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is involved. Writ petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm