CR No.6026 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6026 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.08.2009 Sukhwinder @ Sukha ..Petitioner Vs. Ram Kishan ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision is directed against the order dated 25.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Karnal vide which objections filed by the petitioner to the report of Deputy Commissioner has been rejected. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for damages and permanent injunction along with an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for permission to sue as an indigent person. The application was contested by the petitioner by taking a specific stand therein that the respondent/plaintiff is doing business of dairy CR No.6026 of 2006 2 as he keeps buffaloes and sells milk. It was also pleaded that the respondent/ plaintiff was an expert motor binder and earning Rs.11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand only) per month. In order to resolve the dispute learned trial court called for the report from the Deputy Commissioner regarding financial status of the plaintiff/respondent. The Deputy Commissioner after inquiry submitted a report, that he respondent/plaintiff owned only one house valued at Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only)and did not have any other movable or immovable property. The petitioner filed objections against the report of Deputy Commissioner and sought permission to lead evidence to prove that the report was bad. In fact the plaintiff/respondent had means to pay the court fee as he owned the buffalos and was earning Rs.11000/- (Rupees eleven thousand only) by repairs of motors. Objections were rejected by the learned trial court by taking a view that the petitioner wanted to delay the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order cannot be sustained inasmuch as under Order 33 Rule 6 of the Code it was mandatory for the court to have allowed the parties to lead evidence. The learned court was further bound to examine the witnesses and thereafter pass an order. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Prem Sardana Vs. Savirti Devi 2000 (3) RCR (Civil) 230, wherein this court was pleased to lay down that before the plaintiff could be declared pauper the court was bound to give notice CR No.6026 of 2006 3 to the defendant and Government Pleader and thus, it is contended that the order passed by the court is against statutory provisons of law and law laid down by this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Om Parkash Bhatia & Another Vs. Dhanna Ram & anr CR No.967 of 2006 decided on 25.7.2006 vide which this court had directed the trial court to decide the application after notice to the parties in view of the provisions of Order 33 Rule 6 of the Code. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case it is not in dispute that notice of the application was given to the petitioner in which he filed reply and raised objections to the plaintiff/respondent being declared as an indigent person. It was in view of the stand taken by the petitioner that the learned trial court called for the report of the Deputy Commissioner and the said report has been taken as evidence to form an opinion that the respondent/plaintiff is an indigent person. The provisions of Order 33 Rule 6, therefore, stand complied with. Thus, no ground is made out which may call for an interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction. No merit Dismissed. 17.08. 2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge