Civil Revision No. 6999 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6999 of 2009 Date of decision. 05.12.2011 Gurdeep Singh .... Petitioner Versus Sham Lal ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is revision petition brought by Gurdeep Singh under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 06.11.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, vide which permission to file an appeal as indigent person against the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot has been declined. Sham Lal, respondent had filed a civil suit against Gurdeep Singh, petitioner for recovery, which was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, vide judgment and decree dated 07.06.2008. Civil Revision No. 6999 of 2009 --2-- Gurdeep Singh, petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree alongwith an application praying for permission to file the appeal as indigent person. He had claimed in the application that he did not own any moveable or immovable property except the property, the list of which was annexed with the same. The respondent in his reply had submitted that the applicant had sold his land to play fraud upon the decree holder so that the latter may not be able to recover the decretal amount from him. He had specifically pleaded in his reply that he sold his land on 15.6.1993, 15.6.1999, 16.6.1999 and 17.01.2000 for consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-, 4,80,000/-, 4,80,000/- and Rs.3,11,000/- respectively. He had also claimed that he deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with Punjab & Sind Bank, Jand Sahib on 16.6.1999. He claimed that the petitioner had sufficient funds to pay the court fee on the memorandum of appeal. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot:- “1- Whether the applicant is an indigent person?OPA 2- Relief.” The evidence of the parties was taken in which the applicant himself stepped into the witness box as AW-1 and had examined Vinod Kumar, as AW-2 and closed the same, whereas, respondent himself appeared in the witness box as RW-1. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned First Appellate Court has decided the only issue against the applicant holding him to be unsuccessful in proving himself to be an indigent person. Civil Revision No. 6999 of 2009 --3-- Consequently, his application was dismissed with costs, which was assessed at Rs.500/-. I have heard Mr. P.S. Brar, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has married his two daughters by selling his land. According to him, he is left with nothing now which is a fact evident from the copy of account statement, which he placed before me today. He has submitted that the petitioner is proved to be an indigent person and learned First Appellate Court has been wrong in declining the prayer of the petitioner for permission to file the appeal as indigent person. Learned First Appellate Court has placed reliance on the statement of the applicant himself, who has stated in his cross- examination that he had given up cultivation for the last 8/9 years and that he was living with his only son. He is also on the record admitting that he had sold his land for twelve/thirteen lacs and did not purchase any land thereafter. He is also on the record admitting that he deposited the whole sale consideration in the bank. In the account statement, copy of which is placed before me today, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- alone was deposited on 16.6.1999 and soon thereafter, a sum of Rs.3,99,000/- had been withdrawn. However, the same does not account for the entire sale consideration. When the applicant himself had admitted that he had sold his land in a sum of twelve/thirteen lacs and he deposited the whole sale consideration in the Civil Revision No. 6999 of 2009 --4-- bank, then it can be believed that he had some other account, which he has not disclosed. Nothing has come on the record to suggest that he has spent the entire amount in the marriages of his daughters and that he is left with no means to pay the court fees on the grounds of appeal. I find no illegality in the finding recorded by learned trial court on the only issue framed in this case. Learned First Appellate Court has rightly taken into account the facts that the petitioner married his two daughters in November 1998 and November 1999 and his admission that he did not spend any amount in the marriages because the same were simple. Therefore, I find no reason to differ from the finding of learned First Appellate Court on the only issue framed in this case. Consequently, the finding recorded by learned First Appellate Court on the only issue framed in this case is upheld and finding no merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same. 05.12.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE