IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 CRP.No. 218 of 2011() --------------------- OP.6/2009 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1-4 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. UMMER, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RENI, POLICE CONSTABLE, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. DINESHAN, POLICE CONSTABLE, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. BASHEER, POLICE CONSTABLE, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RES.5-7 ----------------------------------- 1. NIYAS P., S/O.AVARAN, PANGADAN HOUSE, P.O.NILAMBUR RAILWAY STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679330. 2. A.RAJAN, POLICE CONSTABLE, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679329. 3. V.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679329. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.218 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Respondents 1 to 4 in O.P.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri, challenge the order dated 31st January, 2011 by which the court below permitted the first respondent plaintiff to file the suit as an indigent person. The suit was filed by the first respondent claiming compensation of ` 5 lakhs from the defendants, who are police officers. The plaintiff alleged that he was illegally taken into custody by the police and he was tortured. Compensation is claimed for the illegal arrest and torture. The plaintiff alleged that he has no income, no deposit, no property or any other means to pay the court fee of ` 48,400/-. The Additional Government Pleader filed a report stating that the plaintiff has no means to pay the court fee. The plaintiff was examined before court. He stated that he is going for polishing work on daily wages of ` 300/-. The CRP No.218/2011 2 court below held that the plaintiff should be permitted to file the suit as an indigent person. It was held that the fact that the plaintiff gets ` 300/- from coolie work does not mean that he has sufficient means to pay the court fee. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to paragraph 11 of the application filed by the plaintiff under Rule 1 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is stated in paragraph 11 of the affidavit that as the plaintiff could not go for work, he was living with the help of his father and brother. The counsel submitted that while giving evidence, the plaintiff stated that he goes for work and he gets ` 300/- per day. The counsel submits that this is a suppression of material fact which disentitles him from prosecuting the suit as an indigent person. The counsel also relied on Mathew vs. State of Kerala (1996 (2) KLT 363). The counsel submits that the fact that there was suppression of material fact by itself is sufficient for rejecting the application. The question whether the suppressed income CRP No.218/2011 3 would be sufficient for payment of the court fee is not a relevant fact. 3. On going through paragraph 11 of the application, it is clear that the plaintiff stated that the at the time when he made the application, he was not going for work and he was depending for his livelihood on his father and brother. Though he stated in evidence that he is now going for work, it cannot be stated that there was suppression of material fact. The court below considered the relevant aspects and also took into account the report submitted by the Additional Government Pleader. I do not find any infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the court below. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl