THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.883 OF 2007 DATED: 17-06-2010 Between: Mohammed Arshad & 2 others. ..... PETITIONERS And Asaia Sultana & another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 07-12-2006, in O.P.No.862 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, wherein the 1st respondent- plaintiff was permitted to sue as indigent person. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of damages of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on the ground that the defendants played fraud on her, cheated her and subjected her to harassment, torture and defamation. 4. A perusal of the record would show that there were disputes between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, arising out of the arranged marriage, and cases and counter-cases, civil and criminal, were filed against one another. The present suit is filed by the 1st respondent claiming damages alleging that when she was a minor, aged 15 years, the 1st petitioner-D1 committed rape on her in 2002 which resulted in her becoming pregnant and the 1st defendant suggested her to going for abortion and she gave a report to the police and thereafter, 1st defendant married the plaintiff and there was a demand for payment of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and that the 1st defendant assaulted the plaintiff and she delivered a daughter and D1 subjected her to harassment and torture and also gave a false complaint against her damaging her reputation. The defendants denied the said allegations and made counter allegations against the plaintiff. As rightly observed by the learned District Judge, the truth or otherwise of the said allegations cannot be gone into at this stage. 5. The only question that arises for consideration in the present proceedings is whether the plaintiff has not got sufficient means to pay the Court fee and therefore she can be permitted to sue in-forma- pauperis. 6. According to the 1st respondent-plaintiff, she is unemployed and depending on her grand parents and therefore she has no means to pay the Court fee of Rs.26,526/-, payable on the suit claim of Rs.25,00,000/-. Petitioner herein alleged that the 1st respondent-plaintiff is having Ac.2.00 of land situated in the outskirts of Eluru and getting Rs.2,00,000/- per annum as agricultural income and she is also owning a residential house in Eluru worth Rs.10,00,000/- and is getting rental income of Rs.5000/- per month. It is further alleged by the petitioner-D1 that the plaintiff is doing private job on a salary of Rs.3000/- per month and her grand father is doing paddy and money lending business. The income, if any, of the plaintiff’s grand father cannot be treated as assets of the plaintiff. Petitioner-D1 has not chosen to adduce any evidence in support of his allegation that the plaintiff is having immovable property in the shape of lands and house and is getting agricultural and rental income and that she is doing a job on a salary of Rs.3000/- per month. 7. In the cross-examination, R.W.1 categorically admitted that he has not filed any documentary proof like revenue records to show that P.W.1 has got any land and he has also not filed any proof to show that P.W.1 is doing job. The contention of the petitioner- D1 regarding the alleged assets and means of the 1st respondent-plaintiff remained totally unsubstantiated as there is absolutely no iota of evidence in proof of the same. The testimony of P.W.1 that she has no income and therefore no means to pay the Court fee as she is only depending on her grand father, remained virtually unchallenged as her testimony is not discredited in any manner. If really, the 1st respondent-plaintiff is having such immovable property and fetching income therefrom, as alleged by the petitioner-D1, there is absolutely no reason as to why no documentary evidence was placed before the Court in proof of the same. It is always open to the petitioner-D2 to dispauper the plaintiff at any stage of the proceedings, if and when he is able to adduce any evidence to show that the 1st respondent-plaintiff is having sufficient means to pay the Court fee, but as of now there is absolutely no material placed on record to show that the 1st respondent-plaintiff is having any such means and that too, sufficient means to pay the Court fee. 8. In a decision reported in MANDAM ABDUL SAATTAR SAHEB v. H.ABDUL HAKEEM AND OTHERS[1] it was held as follows: “ The expression ‘not possessed of sufficient means’ mentioned in Explanation to Rule 1 while defining the word ‘pauper’ refers to plaintiff’s capacity to pay the court-fee prescribed by law for the plaintiff in such a suit. What is contemplated is not possession of property, but sufficient means i.e. capacity to raise money to pay the court fee. Mere possession of some property is not sufficient. If the property in the possession of the plaintiff is not sufficient enough to raise money to pay the requisite court-fee, he should be deemed to have not been possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee and hence the Court can take him as a pauper under this rule. If, on the other hand he is in possession of property sufficient enough to enable him to raise cash for payment of the court- fee, he can be deemed to have sufficient means to pay the court- fee and he cannot therefore be considered to be a pauper”. 9. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the 1st respondent-plaintiff is having any property or is in possession of any property or that she is deriving any income from any property at all. The learned District Judge has, on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, rightly held that the 1st respondent-plaintiff herein has no sufficient means and capacity to pay the Court fee and therefore she can be permitted to sue as indigent person. 10. The impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or irregularity, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 11 In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 22-03-2007 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th June, 2010. Tsy [1] AIR 1976 ANDHRA PRADESH 85