1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Appeal against Order No. 22/2008 (C.Jageshwar Rao @ C.Shriram Naidu Suryanarayanrao Naidu VERSUS C. Padmavati Naidu & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.G. Gharote, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.M. Ghare, counsel for the R-1 to 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 23, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the instant appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur on 13.02.2008 rejecting an application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to file a suit as an indigent person. A suit for partition and separate possession had been filed by the appellant against his mother and his sisters. The appellant was required to pay a Court fee of Rs.48030/-. It is his case that he had no source of income to pay the requisite Court fee 2 stamps and that he should be permitted to file the suit as an indigent person. The prayer made in the application was strongly opposed by the defendants by filing a reply. It was stated in the reply that the appellant was carrying on business in the name of Cee Jay Interests and Cee San Ink in Shivajinagar, Nagpur. It was stated in the reply that the appellant possessed huge stock of rupees. The appellant was holding State Bank of India Credit Card and was possessing two guns and the value of the guns was not less than Rupees Three Lacs. It was stated in the reply that the appellant possessed the property worth more than Rupees Two Lacs including ornaments also. It is also stated in the reply that the appellant was an income tax payee and he was a member of two prestigious clubs in Nagpur i.e., Gondwana Club and Massonic Lodge. The appellant was one of the partners in the partnership business, which he was carrying out in 3 M.I.D.C., Nagpur on a plot which was worth more than Rupees Five Lacs. The defendants claimed that the appellant had several Bank accounts in the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank, Shikshak Sahakari Co-operative Bank, Andhra Bank, etc., and all this showed that the applicant had sufficient source of income to pay the requisite Court fee. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the application. On an appreciation of the documents and the evidence tendered by the parties on record, the trial Court came to a conclusion that there was no reason to grant the prayer made in the application for permission to sue as an indigent person. The Court observed that the appellant had sufficient source of income to pay the requisite Court fee stamps. The appellant had admitted in his cross- examination that he was doing business by name Cee Jay Interests and Cee San Ink. The documentary 4 evidence adduced on record showed that the appellant had a De-Mat account in H.D.F.C. Bank, Nagpur. He had a savings bank account in the State Bank of India also. The appellant was a member of two very prestigious clubs in Nagpur i.e., Gondwana Club and the Massonic Lodge. This fact was also admitted by the appellant in his cross-examination. He had also admitted that gaining membership of these clubs was in the nature of status symbol in the society. The appellant further admitted in his cross- examination that he possessed cash credit limit of Rs.40,000/- on the credit card of the State Bank of India. According to the trial Court, these facts, coupled with the fact that the appellant was possessing various shares of companies like, Nirlon, Hero Honda, Premier Auto, Century Textiles, Kinetic Engineering, etc., clearly showed that the appellant was not an indigent person within the meaning of Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil 5 Procedure. The trial Court committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for permission to sue as an indigent person. The reasons recorded by the trial Court for rejecting the application filed by the appellant are just and proper as the evidence on record leads to an unequivocal conclusion that the appellant could not be termed as an indigent person. The judgments, in the case of Mrs.S. Resleth Versus Indian Bank & others reported in AIR 1992 Kerala 359 and, M/s Powsulph (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s Inventa Technical & others reported in AIR 1995 Orissa 291, are inapplicable to the facts of this case and cannot be of any assistance to the case of the appellant. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE PTE