FAO No. 3707 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 3707 of 2008 Date of decision: October 20, 2009 Vishal Kumar ........ Appellant Versus M/s Subhash and Company .......Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Gobind Dhanda, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is an appeal against the order dated 26.09.2008 passed by the District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section XXXIII of CPC seeking permission to file an appeal as an indigent person. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has submitted false evidence and has also concealed the factual position that he was owner of two plots of five marlas each. While dismissing the aforesaid FAO No. 3707 of 2008 2 application, a finding was recorded that the appellant even in the examination- in-chief deposed about owning of one plot only, whereas, admittedly he was the owner of two plot. In the lower Court, when he was contesting the suit, he admitted to be an agriculturist and also admitted that he was owner of 1/6th share in the land measuring 70 kanals 15 marlas. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgement rendered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of 'O. P Neelam Hosiery'-1994 (2) Civil Court Cases 371 as well as the judgement rendered by Rajasthan High Court in the case of 'Manjulata (smt.) v. Sidhkaran'-2005 (1) RCR(Civil) 794, to contend that sufficient means include such means on which the bare living of the appellant and the members of his family is dependent and it was not essential that one should deprive himself of the sole means of livelihood or alienate all his assets in order to seek justice or to pay the court fee. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Order XXXIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- 2. Contents of application Every application for permission to sue as [an indigent person] shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits: a schedule of any movable or immovable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof, shall be annexed thereto; and it shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings. A perusal of the aforesaid provision of Code of Civil Procedure FAO No. 3707 of 2008 3 shows that the appellant while moving an application as an indigent person must contain the detail of the movable or immovable property belonging to the appellant in such an application. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute the factual position that the appellant indeed did not disclose the immovable property owned by him. It is also not denied that the appellant in fact while contesting the suit before the lower Court had admitted himself, to be an agriculturist and owner of 1/6th share in the land measuring 70 kanals 15 marlas. In view of the facts of the present, the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, referred to above, will not come to the rescue of the appellant. Moreover, in view of the appellant being an agriculturist and owner of 1/6th share of land as mentioned above, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has sufficient means to pay the court fee. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge October 20, 2009 mohan FAO No. 3707 of 2008 4