IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 552 of 2008() --------------------- OP.5(INDIGENT)/1997 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------------------- GOURI AMMA RAJAMMA, VALLYAVILA MEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, MANNOORKARA, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------- KRISHNAPANICKER SREEDHARA PANICKER SREEKRISHNA PLANTATION BUILDING, MANNOORKARA, NEDUMANGAD. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.552 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March 2010 ORDER Revision is directed against the dismissal of an application moved by the petitioner to sue as an indigent person to claim the relief of declaration of title over the suit property and in the alternative, for compensation from the defendants. The impugned order shows that this was the 4th revision arising from orders passed by the trial court in an application moved for permission to sue as an indigent person. In all the three previous occasions, the revisions had been filed by the contesting respondents against the allowing of the application and this court had allowed such revisions remitting the case for fresh consideration. After the last remission under C.R.P No.161 of 2006 by order dated 24.08.2006, the impugned order had been passed by the court below dismissing the application of the revision petitioner. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Perusing the impugned order, it is seen, the case canvassed by the petitioner that she had no means to pay the court fee payable on the suit claim was accepted. Her claim to sue as an indigent person was however dismissed for the reason that her claim is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly in respect C.R.P No.552 OF 2008 2 of the disputes involved, the parties of the proceedings had agitated their respective claim in two earlier suits, one filed by the respondents and the other subsequently by the present petitioner. After the suit filed by the respondents as plaintiffs was decreed allowing recovery of possession of the property scheduled in the present case as well from the defendants/petitioners, the petitioner instituted a suit seeking declaration of her right over that property. That suit was dismissed. Thereafter she filed the present suit with the application seeking permission to prosecute the suit as an indigent person. Her claim is barred by resjudicata as the parties have been litigating under the same title in respect of the same matter involved and, further, the relief canvassed in the present suit is also barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure were the objections raised by the contesting respondents. During the course of the enquiry in the application seeking permission to sue as an indigent person, petitioner gave up her claim for the main relief canvassed, declaration of title over the suit property, conceding that it cannot be agitated upon in view of the binding decision rendered in the previous suit. However, she sought permission to proceed with the alternate relief canvassed, that is, to claim compensation from the respondents, that too relating to the subject matter involving the property described in the suit. There was some mistake in describing that suit property conveyed by the C.R.P No.552 OF 2008 3 predecessor of the contesting respondents to the husband of the plaintiff was the basis for claiming the compensation. The learned Sub Judge after examining the materials produced found that such a relief if at all available should have been canvassed by the plaintiff when she had instituted a suit for declaration of her title. Even if she had set up such a claim as well in her previous suit whether it could have been entertained or decided in her favour is a moot question in the light of the early decree passed in favour of the respondents allowing recovery of possession of the same property. The question that emerge for consideration is whether the case canvassed by the petitioner to claim compensation at this point of time as an alternate relief in the present suit is entertainable after she had been worsted in two earlier proceedings. View taken by the court below under Section not entertainable appears to be proper and correct. On the facts and circumstances presented in the case, I find no interference with the order passed by the learned Sub Judge dismissing the application of the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person arise for consideration. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE