THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.1241 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 21.10.2005 in P.O.P. No.18 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellants herein under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to declare them as indigent persons, was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as the appellants and the respondents as arrayed in this C.M.A. 3. The appellants are the petitioners, who filed the application to declare them as indigent persons so as to enable themselves to file a suit, in forma pauperies, for compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- against A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Tirupathi, Divisional Engineer (Operation) APSPDCL, Rayachoty and the District Collector, Kadapa. The appellants’ case is that the husband of the first appellant died due to electrocution and that the appellants are not having means to pay the court fees. 4. On the other hand, the respondents 2 and 3 filed common counter inter alia stating that the appellants are having Ac.0-85 cents in Survey No.1374 and the value of the said land is Rs.20,000/- and that they are getting annual income of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and as such they have sufficient means to pay the court fee. 4. The trial court framed the following point for consideration: “Whether there are any grounds to declare the petitioners (appellants herein) as indigent persons? ” 5. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the appellants, the first appellant was examined as PW.1 and no documents were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 6. The trial curt after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence brought on record and also the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the application. Hence, this C.M.A. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the court below failed to see that the appellants had only 0.85 cents of land and they sold the said land to one Rache Gangaiah; that the court below ought to have seen that even if the land is not sold, in any event the income derived by the appellants would not be Rs.40,000/- per annum, and that the court below ought to have taken into consideration the precarious financial position of the appellants. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the court below has given cogent and convincing reasons while dismissing the application, and as such, the impugned order does not warrant interference from this court. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 10. The first appellant is the wife of the deceased, who died on 8.7.2004 due to electrocution. Appellants 2 to 4 are their children. It is the contention of the appellants that they have sold away the above stated extent of land to one Rache Gangaiah. But there is no proof with regard to that aspect. On the other, on behalf of the respondents Ex.B.1-Adungal was marked, which shows that the land to an extent of 0.85 cents is in the name of the appellants. As such, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has passed a reasoned order and there are no grounds to warrant interference by this court. 11. Hence, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J -03-2010 Stp