IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 FAO.No. 100 of 2010() --------------------- POP.60/2005 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------- SNAKARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE PULLUVEETTIL PRAPPAN, NATTIKA BEACH DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE,CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNEESHKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SEKHARAN, KUTTAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, THAMBANKADAVU P.O.,THALIKKULAM. 2. KURUMBA SEKHARAN, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.SEKHARAN, KUTTAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, THAMBANKADAVU P.O.,THALIKKULAM. 3. YASODA, AGED 41 YEARS,KUTTAMPARAMBATH HOUSE,THAMBANKADAVU P.O.,THALIKKULAM. 4. NEELAKANDAN, AGED 76 YEARS,S/O.RAMAN, NAMBIVEETTIL HOUSE,THAMBANKADAVU P.O.,THALIKKULAM. 5. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES. REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, 'BHADRADA',MUSEIUM ROAD,THRISSUR. 6. JOHN D.UKKAN, MANGER,THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, 'BHADRADA',MUSEUM ROAD,THRISSUR. 7. VIJAYARAGHAVAN,MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, 'BHADRADA',MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR. Kss .2/- ..2.... FAO.NO.100/2010 8. SUKUMARAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE PULLUVEETTIL PRAPPAN, NATTIKA BEACH DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, NOW SUKUMARAN P.P.,C/O.ASOKAN, P.O.BOX NO.1156,AJMAN U.A.E., 9. RAJAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE PULLUVEETTIL PRAPPAN, NATTIKA BEACH DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, NOW P.P.RAJAN, P.BOX.NO.4241,ABUDHABI, U.A.E. 10. THANKA ARJUNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, ARAMIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.PALLI PORT MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 11. RUGMINI PRABHAKARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, PARIYAKATHU HOUSE,P.O. KUNDALIYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 12. SANKUNTHALA SOMAN, AGED 44 YEARS, PATTALI HOUSE, P.O.ENGANDIYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 13. SASIJA VISWANATHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, ITHIKKAT HOUSE,P.O.ENGANDIYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 14. OMANA JAYAPRAKAS,KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R5,R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, K.S.F.E., LTD. R10 TO R14 BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ F.A.O. No.100 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 12th October 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. The appellant filed an application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, seeking to sue as an indigent person. He sought for reliefs valued at around Rs.7,50,000/- and a court fee of Rs.73,000/- is payable thereon. He sued as an indigent person by filing the application with the schedule showing only certain personal belongings and movables. He has no landed property and the District Collector has reported before the court below that the plaintiff did not have any immovable property. The appellant gave evidence as PW1. In the cross examination, it came out that he earns Rs.10,000/- per month working abroad and he has an NRI account. The court below has taken the stand that the existence of such an NRI account ought to have been shown in the schedule and the FAO No.100/10 2 suppression of the said account would amount to such suppression, warranting dismissal of the application for leave to sue as an indigent person. 2. We are of the view that this approach is quite misplaced. All that has come out is not the suppression of any asset, but only a particular source of income which, even if reckoned, could not have been reasonably counted to hold that the appellant ought to have paid the court fee and has the means to pay the court fee required for the suit. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to take the view, particularly when the State did not have any objection to the plaintiff being permitted to sue as an indigent person, that the court below ought have granted the application filed by him for the said purpose. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. As a consequence, POP No.60/05 on the file of the Sub Court, FAO No.100/10 3 Thrissur is allowed hereby. Further proceedings in the matter will be in accordance with this judgment. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta FAO No.100/10 4