:sv^w^ T /.', 'l^^ -i, T^A^T'S'-' iei. No. ^et. fo. 110 of 2003 TiJ-Sn-. Keshulal Agrawal, S/o Nin-anand AgrawaS,- aged about 40 years, R/o Medha, T'eh. DongaTg.ai'h, Distt. R&.jnandgaon (CG) 1. Johaai D/o Peeru, W/o Shri Ram 50 years R/o Solhapara, Dongargarh (CG) 2. Vishal, son of Peeru, 46 years, R/o Solhapara, Dongargarh (CG) 3. Bisajiibhar, S/o Peeru, 48 5'eai's R/o Solhapara, Dongargarh, Dis.tt. Rajnandgaon (CG) 4. Vishnu, S/o Peeru, 44 years, R/o Solhapara, Dongargarh, Distt.. Rajnan.dgaon (CG) 5. State of CMiattisgat'h tlTi'ougli CoUector, Rajnandgaon Shri PrafuUa BhaTat,:Adgocate, ibr fhe appUcaiit. Shii Araiyalcant T'iwat^i, Xdvocate fortlie non-applicaats No. 1 to 4. Ku. Sangeeta Mishra,;:Panel Laiiyer, for the respondent No. 5. w'nr.TC 'Ait^af >-"f*STi i-1 V ( ^ - -f Tv^~;;-'=> iT^V^'Qf;^ T'f^T^'Z.if^T^ 11S ^J"1T't!:a/~*t"i''if1 C5??£?iT~5'Q"^~ t'^"li'=- ^T'i'~1 ^l'' .rl Slt'il:'Li'~1 -i-. . 111C IJ.lSLdlll. 1CVJ.S1U11 i.S U.JJ.Ct/i.CU cA^c.U-lJ.S t U.1C Ul Ud •LliALC'U 7-2-2003 passed by in Cndl Suit No. 4-A/2003 by fae Civil Judge Class I, Doii^rgarh wtiereby and whereunder the appUcation under Order 33 Rule 2 of C.P.C. ffled by fhe non-applicants No. 1 and 2 was allowed. . • • • 2. Shri Pralulla Bharat, leamed counsel for the applicant •H'ould submit that the said application has been aUowed without followmg the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 A of the C.P.C. inasmuch no enauinr was at all conducted bv' leariied trial Coiirt +u. beiore passuig ttie order which is inandatoiy in \ 1 natLire and, fherefore, tne order passed by learned trial Gom't is without jurisdiction. t 3. Per contra, Shri Amiyalcant Tiwari, leanied couiisel appeai'ing for the non-applicants No. 1 to 4 would submit fhat the matter of Couil fee is beto/een fhe State and the plaintiffe aad the applicant/defendant has no locus staiidl to challenge tlie saine. 4. I have hear'd leanied counsel for the parties aiid perused the impugned order. ^.^ ?-i-:1cs 1 G7-ir^ TPnl^ 1-A n.fl t1^f=1 rt. P P r^a,^ ^, •^. 1-^J. Lld 00 X\LUC X fcU-iU. JT'i.i-UC -I'Tl. Ui LliC ^/.^~'.^-/. iCfei.Li cs.^ tUider- l^ -? 1. iult may be instituted by iadigent aerson.- Subject to the foUowing provisions, any sudt may be instituted by an iadigent person. Explanation I.-A person is aii iadigent persoii,- $a) if he is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attacliment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of fhe suit) to enable hmi to pay the fee prescribed b;/ law for the plaint ijn such suit, or i"^^, where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees other than fhe property exempt from attacliment iii execution of a decree, and the subject-niatter of the suit. Explanation S. - Any propert}- wliich is acquired toy a person after the presentation of his application for permission to sue as an indigent person, and before fee decision of the apptication, shall be o __.-',Ti,l...*....i^lf.,a.ME..aijntli taken into account iii considering the question whether or not the applicant is an tndigent person. ^ Bxplanation SI - Where' the plaintiff sues in a representatives capacity, the question 'n'liefher he is aii indigent person shall be determined with reference to the iiieans possessed by litm in such capa.city. indieent rerson.- E\?ery enquip/ into tiie question whether or not a person is aii indigent person shall be aiade, in the first instance, by the chief mirusterial officer of the Court, unless the CoLirt ofherr/ise directs, and the Court sa.ay adopt the report of such oJEcer as its own finding or may itself make an inqiiin' into tlie question. As per Order 33 Ri.ile 1 of C.P.C., a suit instituted by indigent person aiid the Court may aUow him to file ihe same a.s an indigent person only upon enquiry uito the question whether or not a person is an indigent person by Chief Ministerial Officer of the Co'Lirt, unless the Court owhtenvise directs, and fhe Court may adopt the report of such officer as its own Siidin^ or m.ay itself make an enquiry into the question. Rules 5 and 7 of Order 3.3 of C.P.C. prescribes tl-ie procedure for receiving evidence of applicant's indigency and procedi-ire of hearing and only thereafter leaiTied trial Court. is to pass order. But here ui fhis case, only on fhe basis of fhe application filed by fhe plsdntiffs aiid the reply filed by the defendants, leamed trial Court has passed the order permitting the plaintiffs to file the suit as aii mdigent person. It is therefore, cn'stal clear that without conductlng any enquiry as envisaged under Rule 1-A of Order 33, C.P.C. the order has been passed whlch, in the considered opinion of jiii'isdiction. ;, i: -it!^r^-;ist •'i.U.lUU. 7. In view of fhe above, the.order impugiied deserves to be and is herebv set aside and tlie matter is remitted bacl< to fhe trial Court for decision afresh on fhe application ffled by fhe plaintifis iinder Order 33 Rule 1 of C.P.C. after conducting enqutry and after adopttng due orocedure &s enidsaeed iinder Order 33 ofC.P.C. The revision is alloived. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge