*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI +W.P.NO. 4312 OF 2010 % Date 19.7.2010 # Pyla Bangarraju ..Petitioner Vs. $ Pyla Venkata Ramakrishna & another .. Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioner: Sri Peri Prabhakar ^ Counsel for respondents: Smt.M.Bhaskara Lakshmi ? CASES REFERRED: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.4312 OF 2010 Dt.19.7.2010 Between: Pyla Bangarraju ..Petitioner And Pyla Venkata Ramakrishna and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.4312 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Petitioner seeks to quash the certificate for court fee exemption dated 30.1.2008 issued by the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Kakinada, in favour of the 1st respondent – Pyla Venkata Ramakrishna. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is his own brother and he has filed Pauper O.P.No.42 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, to permit him to sue as an indigent person, to declare gift deed dated 28.1.2001 as void and not valid and to grant permanent injunction. It is stated that the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, has not followed the procedure laid down under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure in conducting the enquiry and granting the court fee exemption by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Mandal Legal Services Committee and the Mandal Legal Services Committee is empowered to sanction Rs.250/- in each case and in exceptional cases an additional amount not exceeding 50% of the said amount is also payable as aid. But, whereas in the instant case the court fee payable is Rs.8,426/- + Rs.786/- declaring the 1st respondent as indigent person exempting court fee was without any notice to the petitioner and therefore the grant of court fee exemption is illegal. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed I.A.No.299 of 2008 in the said O.P. in declaring that the 1st respondent as pauper exempting court fee as illegal and the matter requires to be reopened for conducting enquiry. But the said I.A. was dismissed by order, dated 3.2.2010, by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and after dismissing the said I.A. the court below is proceeding with the trial of the case. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no other remedy except to question the certificate for court fee exemption dated 30.1.2008. Heard both the learned counsel. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent filed the said O.P. to permit him to sue as indigent person in forma pauperis and it is also not in dispute that both the parties to the suit belong to Scheduled Caste and they are own brothers. We are not concerned with the merits of the said suit. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the grant of certificate of court fee exemption by the Mandal Legal Services Committee under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is justified or not. We are of the opinion that the procedure to declare the plaintiff or the defendant as an indigent person permitting him to sue as in forma pauperis is distinct and different from the entitlement of legal services. The entitlement of legal services is defined under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, the Act) and the Rules made thereunder. Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the suits filed by indigent persons. Under Order XXXIII C.P.C., if a person is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in the suit, an enquiry has to be conducted with regard to the means of an indigent person, on an application filed by the applicant, and after examining the applicant, it is open for the court either to permit him to sue as indigent person or reject the said application. However, it is open for the court to hear the parties to the suit for deciding either to dismiss or allow the said application. Even after the grant of such permission, the same can be withdrawn under Order XXXIII, Rule 9, C.P.C, on the application made by the defendant or the Government Pleader filed within the prescribed time. If the indigent person succeeds in the suit, the court fee is recoverable by the State from the plaintiff who has succeeded in the suit. In so far as Section 12 of the Act is concerned, every person who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under the Act if that person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and various other categories of persons. In the instant case, admittedly the 1st respondent who filed the said suit to sue as indigent person in forma pauperis is a member of the Scheduled Caste. Therefore, he is entitled for giving legal services under the Act. The modes of legal services and advice are enumerated in Regulation 25 of A.P. State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1996. Under Regulation 25(b)(ii)(a) exemption of court fee also can be in the form of legal services. In the instant case, the first respondent being a member of the Scheduled Caste is entitled for legal services and he is entitled for court fee exemption also. We are of the opinion that the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Aid and Advice to the Poor Rules, 1980 are applicable in respect of poor persons only who are entitled for the legal aid and the said Rules prescribed the financial limits for grant of legal aid in respect of Taluk Committee, Mandal Committee, District Committee, High Court Committee etc. Rule 20 prescribes the maximum limit of aid to be given by the Taluk Committee is Rs.250/- in each case and in exceptional cases the Council may sanction as additional amount not exceeding 50% of the said amount. The legal aid can be for pre-litigation and post litigation. In so far as the instant case is concerned, it is a case of member of Scheduled Caste who is entitled for legal aid and as per Section 12 of the Act a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall be entitled to legal services. However, the petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No.299 of 2008 in P.O.P.No.42 of 2007 contending that the 1st respondent is not a pauper and he has capacity to pay the court fee and the court below without taking the evidence of parties allowed the 1st respondent as pauper and therefore the matter requires to be reopened for the purpose of conducting enquiry. The said application was considered and the parties were examined. The petitioner herein was examined as P.W.1. It is the case of the petitioner that as per decree in O.S.No.179 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, the 1st respondent has got a share in the joint family property and therefore he has means to pay. But in the cross-examination the petitioner himself admitted that the partition in the said suit has not become final and as per the evidence of the 1st respondent herein the properties alleged to have been allotted to his share in I.A.No.950 of 1995 in O.S.No.179 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, are the subject matter of the main O.P. and as such he cannot sell and pay the court fee. After considering the oral evidence of both the parties and their contentions the court below came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent has no means to pay the court and accordingly dismissed the said application by order, dated 3.2.2010. The said order has not been questioned. The petitioner has only questioned the certificate issued by the Mandal Legal Services Committee granting court fee exemption. The petitioner has already availed the remedy of questioning the said exemption of court fee and having failed in his attempt to declare that the 1st respondent is not a pauper, he filed the present writ petition. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. We do not see any justification on the part of the petitioner to question the said certificate for court fee exemption as the 1st respondent, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, is entitled for legal service and exempting court fee is also one of the modes of legal services. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 19.7.2010 Note: L.R. copy to be marked B.O. kpr