CR No.7932 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 7932 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 6.12.2010 Surjit Singh ....petitioner vs. Surinder Kaur @ Saranjit Kaur and another .....respondents. CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by learned trial Court on 1.10.2010 whereby an application filed by the plaintiff-respondents for permission to sue an indigent person was allowed. The respondents have filed a suit for claiming maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- for each of the petitioners for a period of three years i.e., Rs. 7,20,000/- under Section 18 of the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act, 1956 and also to create charge over the land measuring 21 kanals 14 marlas. The said suit was accompanied by an application under Order 33 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure. It is the said application which was allowed by learned trial Court on 1.10.2010. Learned trial Court has found that the respondent No. 1 has been examined as AW 1. She has deposed that she is not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court fee. The Court has found that the testimony of the witness could not be shattered and that there is any CR No.7932 of 2010 2 material on record to prove the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is possessed of the property more than that mentioned in Annexure A-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been remitting amount to the respondents from time to time. In view of the remittance of the said amount, the respondents are possessed of sufficient means and not entitled to maintenance. Reference was made to the documents Exs.R-1 and R-6 as well as Mark-RW-1. Though document Mark RW-1 is not admitted in evidence, but the photocopy of the same was referred to by Mr. Dogra during the course of hearing. Such documents show that certain amount was remitted in the years 2001, 2003 and 2005. Such payments would, in fact, show that the respondents are not possessed of sufficient means and the amount is being remitted by the petitioner for their maintenance. The respondents are none else but the wife and son of the petitioner. The amount remitted by the petitioner is only towards maintenance and is not an asset, which is generating sufficient income for the respondents to maintain themselves. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the learned trial Court has allowed the application for permission to sue as an indigent person without waiting for the report of the Collector and without issuing the notice to the Government pleader. Reliance is placed upon Order 33 Rule 6 of the CPC in support of such argument. I do not find any merit in the said argument as well. The learned trial Court has issued notice to the Collector and sought its report. CR No.7932 of 2010 3 The Collector has not submitted his report within the time granted. Therefore, it has been rightly inferred that the Collector has nothing to say about the financial status of the plaintiffs. A notice to the Government pleader was sent in substitution of the notice to the Collector. No report has been received from the Collector. Once notice has been issued to the Collector, it satisfies the procedural requirement of Order 33 Rule 6 of the CPC as well. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 06.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE