IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6379 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.1.2010 Charanjit Lal Sharma ......Petitioner(s) Versus Deep Chand Sharma and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order whereby his application for declaring him an indigent person was dismissed and he was ordered to affix the ad valorem Court fee and further order dated 28.7.2008 whereby his suit was dismissed for non- affixation of the aforesaid Court fee. As per the averments, the petitioner filed suit for recovery of Rs.15 lakhs as damages against the respondents. Along with this suit, he filed an application to declare him as an indigent person submitting that he is a poor person and was living his life below the poverty line and had no means to pay the court fee. Report of Collector was also sought which was received and it was found that the petitioner was having sufficient means to pay the court fee. His financial status was assessed to be Rs.2 lakhs. The aforesaid application was also contested by the respondents. In the reply, the respondents had also submitted that the petitioner had a regular income. He is a political person. He had filed about 70-80 frivolous suits in different courts in District Rewari and was not a pauper person. He was a man of means and had failed to disclose the CR No.6379 of 2009 -2- same so as to get undue benefit from the Court. On considering the evidence and the report of the Collector, the trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.7.2009 rejected the application filed by the petitioner to treat him as an indigent person and directed him to pay the ad valorem court fee on or before 28.7.2009. In spite of time granted, the petitioner failed to deposit the ad valorem court fee within the stipulated period and thus, his plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any material evidence from the record on the basis of which any fault can be found with the impugned order. Thus, no error or illegality can be found in the impugned order. Dismissed. January 25, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE