Civil Rev.5495 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev.5495 of 2008 Date of decision: 31.8.2009 Surender Kumar Petitioner vs Triloki Nath Sharma Respondent Present Mr. Pankaj Midha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. The defendant- petitioner has been directed to pay court fees stamps in the sum of Rs.13,570/- to contest his counter claim regarding specific performance against the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff- respondent, in the present case, is father of the petitioner, who has filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of H.No.594-MIG-I, Phase IV, Housing Board Colony, Jind and to pay the mesne profits @ Rs.2000/- per month for his unauthorized use and occupation of the above said house. The defendant- petitioner has sought the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.11.2003. On the basis of the report of the Collector, the trial court has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the petitioner owns only house hold articles worth Rs.35,000/-. He being an indigent person should not be compelled to sell his house hold articles to pay the court fee. He has further argued that the petitioner being the owner of the house in dispute, the value of the property in dispute should Civil Rev.5495 of 2008 2 not be taken into consideration. For determining his status as pauper, he has placed reliance on O.P. Neelam Hosiery Works vs State Bank of India 1994(3) RRR 553, wherein it has been observed that provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 CPC have been enacted to help poor persons to seek justice by filing suits or appeals without court fee. Sufficient means will not mean the articles required for bare living of a person, seeking to litigate as a pauper. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered his contentions. The report of the Collector indicates that he is in possession of various items of luxury, including a coloured T.V., refrigerator, washing machine besides the house and a gas connection. From the acquisition of the above said article by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not capable of paying the court fee. The trial court seems to have fairly exercised his jurisdiction in directing the petitioner to pay the court fee. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is granted three months time to pay the court fee for his claim of specific performance. In case the court fee is not paid within the above said time, the counter claim will be deemed to have been struck off. However, he will be entitled to contest the suit as a defendant on the other pleas, taken in the written statement. August 31 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE