Civil Revision No. 5501 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5501 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.2.2010 Rattan Chand .. Petitioner v. Punjab State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. J. K. Gurna, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 25.8.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 27.2.2007 along with an application with permission to sue as an indigent person, the petitioner having not led any evidence to substantiate his claim of being an indigent person, the application was rejected and consequently the petitioner is before this Court. Briefly, the facts are that respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 2,35,93,392/- along with defendants-respondents No. 4 and 5. The suit was ultimately decreed for recovery of Rs. 1,64,10,346/- along with costs and interest vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2007. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned court below along with an application with permission to sue as an indigent person as the court fee required to be paid along with the appeal was about Rs.1,64,000/- and the petitioner being out of service and was not having means to pay the same. As the petitioner failed to lead any evidence in support of his claim of being an indigent person, the application was dismissed. It is against this order that the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed by the learned court below on 25.8.2009. In fact, the petitioner noted a wrong date as 28.8.2009 and he was to appear in court on that day along with relevant documents. However, on account of his non-appearance on 25.8.2009, the Civil Revision No. 5501 of 2009 [2] learned court below finding that there was no evidence on record in support of the plea of the petitioner being an indigent person, the application was dismissed. He further submitted that the petitioner is out of service. He was paid some petty amount as retiral benefits. Rest of them was withheld. In fact, the petitioner does not have any means to pay the court fee and in case an opportunity is afforded, the petitioner will be able to substantiate his claim before the learned court below. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner having been afforded sufficient opportunities to lead evidence in support of his claim and having failed, is not entitled to any further opportunity. In fact, the petitioner has means to pay the court fee, which is not substantial. It is a case in which lot of embezzlement was there, on account of which the suit filed against the petitioner was decreed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. No doubt, as is mentioned in the order impugned, that four opportunities were granted by the learned court below to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of his claim of being an indigent person, but on account of his lapse, the application was dismissed. The decree sought to be impugned by the petitioner is for recovery of substantial amount of Rs.1,64,10,346/-. Considering that fact and also that the claim of the petitioner is that he was no more in service, he had no means to pay the court fee, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves to be granted an opportunity to lead evidence in support of his claim of being an indigent person. In case he is able to substantiate his plea, his claim will be considered by the learned court below on merits. However, in case of failure, unless the petitioner deposits the requisite court fee, the judgment and decree passed against him will attain finality. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned court below, I deem it appropriate to grant opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of his claim for permission to sue as an indigent person. The parties are directed to appear before the learned court below on 3.4.2010 for further proceedings. The petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 24.2.2010 mk Civil Revision No. 5501 of 2009 [3]