C.R. No. 725 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 725 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.2.2009 Bharat Bhushan ....Petitioner Versus Yogesh Raj ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated January 13, 2009, passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33 CPC for permission to sue as an indigent person was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not have any means to pay the Court fee as even the report of Tehsildar dated December 5, 2008 clearly establish that the petitioner does not own any moveable or immovable property except the household items i.e. utensils, bed and furniture etc. He has further produced before this Court balance sheet of firm M/s Monga Attachi Works, Faridkot in which mother and wife of the petitioner are the partners. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the balance sheet shows that there are more liabilities than the assets. However, I do not find any merit in the submission made. Learned Court below has referred to the cross examination of the petitioner as was recorded in the present proceedings where the petitioner admitted that the firm M/s Monga Attachi Faridkot is being run for the last 15/20 years in Faridkot. Earlier father of the petitioner was running the firm and the petitioner was assisting him. After the death of his father in December 1998, the petitioner started running the said firm as the proprietor. However, he left the C.R. No. 725 of 2009 (O&M) 2 proprietorship of the firm nearly 1/1/4 years back. His statement was recorded on October 8, 2008. It was further admitted that he left the proprietorship of the firm during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court which was for recovery of Rs. 5,94,000/- from the petitioner. Though he stated that he never paid any income tax or filed any income tax return but he further stated that his lawyer can tell about the same whose name was mentioned as Sh. Lalit Mohan Gupta. To a Court question as to whether the petitioner ever signed any balance sheet or handed over the same to his counsel for filing with the income tax department during the period the petitioner remained as proprietor of the aforesaid firm, the petitioner remained silent and did not reply to the question. However, he stated that he has been signing the challans and balance sheets and had been giving the same to his lawyer for filing with the income tax department. He further admitted that since the year 1998 till 2005-06 he had been filing the income tax returns regularly. The aforesaid facts clearly establish that the petitioner infact is a man of means. The entire exercise carried out by him for leaving the firm as proprietor thereof and putting his wife and mother as partners was just a device to avoid payment of Court fee or for other reason. A person who was filing income tax return earlier and was engaging an advocate to prepare balance sheet and file return in Income tax department cannot be said to be pauper. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 10.2.2009 JUDGE Reema