THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.514 OF 2000 Dated 12th August, 2009 Between: Pulavarthi Surya Nagendra Gupta ….Appellant And Vendra Venkayamma and others ….Respondents Counsel for the appellant : SRI S.V.R.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the respondents: SRI Y.CHANDRA SEKHAR The Court made the following: J U D G M E N T: The appellant filed O.P.No.42 of 1995 under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC to permit him to file a suit as an indigent person, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur against the respondents for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The trial Court undertook enquiry into the application. Through its order dated 08.11.1999, it rejected the permission. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the contesting respondents. Before the trial Court, the appellant deposed as P.W.1. No documentary evidence was adduced. The respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. This is not a case, where the appellant was not possessed of any property at any point of time. It was elicited through the appellant as P.W.1 that in the partition with his father, he got Acs.18.00 of land and that his mother left a house worth Rs.10 lakhs and that he is living in it. In addition to that, it was also pointed out that in another suit, to which his mother is a party, rents were being deposited and that on the death of his mother, he became the legal heir along with his sister. Suggestions were also made to the effect that the appellant owns luxurious and costly items of movable property. Order XXXIII CPC provides for an extraordinary facility in favour of persons, who are not possessed of adequate means to pay the Court fee. It cannot be extended just on being asked. Heavy burden lies upon the person claiming the benefit, to prove that he is not possessed of any means to pay the Court fee. The trial Court has extensively reproduced the information elicited through the appellant in the evidence. He admitted that he got Acs.18.00 of land in the partition not long ago before filing of the suit. Though he pleaded that the property was sold, he did not mention the particulars of the sales. Had the appellant furnished the particulars of the same, there would have been occasion for the Court to verify the genuinity of such a claim. Failure to furnish the details leads to an adverse inference to the effect that had they been furnished, the verification thereof would have proved them to be wrong. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is granted four weeks’ time from today to pay the Court fee and in default, the plaint shall stand rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated 12th August, 2009 Note: Issue C.C in one week vrn