8 @ HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT (C.6.) WRIT PETITION N0. PETETCONERS bEFENDANTS RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF l' Bdiuram, 5/0. Shivdayat, about 52 years, 2. Sheshiaf, S/0. Balluram, Aged Qbout 24 years, Both R/0 Viilay®- Tnuhadabri, Tehsil: .Ambagarh Chowki, bl^tt. RaJnGndgaon (C.6.) VERSUS 1. Powun KuiTiar, S/o Late &haniram ©Qdhriya, 10 years, ftepresented by- fiuardian Thakur Ram , (Brother) R/o Hitagutc, Pofice StQ+ion and Tehsit ; Chowki, &jst. Rajnandgoon( C.G.). PQST FOft OftbB^ ON l^. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^ HI6H_COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR:CHHATTIS6ARH WRnLPrrmoN NO. PETETIONERS DEFENDANTS 2. Bafjuram, 5/0. Shivdaya!, Aged Qbout 52 yeQrs, Sheshhi, S/0. Baliuram, Aged obout 24 yea^, Both R/0 Viliage - Thuhadabri, Teh^ll^ Chowkl, Gi^tt. RajnandgGon (C.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF 1. Pawan Kumar, S/o Late Dhaniram ©adhriya, 10 ycars, Represented by" ^UQrdian Thakur ftam (Brother) R/o HitagutQ, Pollcs Station and Tghsll ^ Chowkl, Dist. Rajnand9aon( C.©.). Present:- Mr. Majumdar , Advocate; For the pctitioneM. Befot'e: Hon'ble Shrl Justiee L.C. Bhadoo OR D6R (Passed onlZ?<tSsptember. 2003) The petitioners hav© preferred this wrlt petition under Artick 226/227 of thc Constitution of Indla, being aggricved by the Order dated 14-08-2003, by which the District Judge, Rajnandgaon ailowed the Gpptieation of the plaintiff under (^ Order XXXIII Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as J' v^' 2. Facts to the fiiing of this writ petition are that respondBnt/ptaintjff fiied a civi! suit throuah his guardian Thakur before the bjstrict Judge, Rajnandgaon against the present petitioners for compensation of Rs.8,15,000/- as the mother- of Pawan Kumar, the respondent/ pidntiff namely Pancho Bai on i2a05"98 went to the Mii! of NoJ as a working as a labourer in the hauler AAil! of petltjoner No.l ^he met with an as her was into the on account of gettina her ^ari entangled in the machine and she her life Therefore, fiied a civil suit ailegin.9 that his mother lost her life on Of th€ yf the ^ecurity arranaement^ by covering the machine were not made by the and the niiil •A her sari got entan9led in-the machine of 15 hor^e power. In 9 of the plai.nt it was that pjdntiff Kumar is leadlng hi^ life beiow the poverty line and h©is not in a to pay the Court An under Order XXXIII Rul®1 and 2 of C.P.C. read with Section ® .¥. 35 of th©Court Fees Act, in which it was mentioned that the has a plaint for as sinc©th©plaintiff i^ leadinq his life below th©pov©rtyline and the the It was further mentioned that Thakur Ram also leading th© life the line and his is fts.6,000/as, An objection was raised by the petltioners herein that th@ is noT in Th© 2 and 3 of Order XXXIII. The certificate of the Sarpanch is not to the effect ThaT The pidnTlff is the line and of Thakur Ram and Pancho BGJ are not regi^tered in the Reglster of poor Dlstrlct impugned order after considering the arguments of both the obser^^d that the plain'l'iff is old and h© has lost his mother and father and he has filed the pldnt under thg guardianship of his brother- It observad that it is not in dispute that a joint property of 6n7 Acres agricuiturai is there in which the pblntiff has a share uitimateiy he mentioned that the piuintiff is minor and his parents are not o.live, therefore, the piaintiff is entitled for rebxatlon and ultimately appiication atiowed. 4 (^ 3. Learned coun^el for the petitioners submitted that the must contain the of pr'operty' of movable imrTiovable cnd the applicatjon must be presented In person or by authori^ed a^ent who can an^wer all materiat question^ to the and be in the same manner a^ the part)/ repre^ented by him might have been exarnined party attended in person. Learned counSBi further submitted that no notice has to the $ov©rnm@ntpl©Qd©r, th^refore, the proc©dur@adopted by the Court is not correct. 4. It is true that a perusai of th©GUpiication does not reveai thaf any schedule of property of movabte or immovable was annexed with the appiicatJon and it does not appear that To the But are the procedurai irregularittes. Paramount consideration for decidiang The Order XXXIII 1 2 to decfare the pldntiff as indigent person so as to permit him to fite without Court Is concerned, the Court must satj^ry itself whether there is suffscient property or means with the pbintiff to file theftCourt fee. The piaintiff filed the suit for ciaiming the compensation of Rs,8,15,OOOA. The plaintiff is a minor the plaintiff has Joint share in the 6-7 of the land thi^ 6BB7 Acres of the iand partitioned between two brothers nameiy Sonu Ram and Dhaniram, 3/20 Aere^ feil in the ^hare of each brother1 and the and af only 54 Dedmai land f©II in the share of plaintiff- Pawan ThiS iS the by the Sarpanch on 15-12-2000 and ©v©nth©petitioners could not out any or In the -of the plaintiff. More over the fact that the mother of th@ piaintiff as and on th© of of the petmoner had gone to th@ mili of the petition^r^ as a no of income of th©piaintiff or his mother and that Js why his moth©r to as Thls fact itself is sufficient for reaching th& conciusion that the pteintiff not in a posltlon to pay the Court fea on th© amount of Rs.845,000/-. Even if this irregubrity which the for the petitioners pointed out, in my opjnjon this irregularity, boking to the facts and circumstances of the is not matgrlal which makes th®i.Tipygngd ordsr illegal or perverse. 5, Now coming to th©question of jurisdiction of this Court for this writ has been filed under Artlcle 227 of the Constitution of India, the HWbie Apex Court while deallng with the ^upervisory jurisdjctjon of the High Court Articie 227 of the Constitution of India held in the matter of Syrya b^v RaJ Vs, Rai and reported in ,4IR SCW 3872 that certiorari juri^diction though ayaitable is not to be as a of The Court be justified in refu^ing th©writ of certiorari Jf no faiiure of justice has occasioned. In exercising the certiorari Jurisdiction th©procedure ordinarily followed by th@ High CourT is to command the inferior Court or Tribund to certify it^ record or proceedings to th@ HJ9h Court for it^ in^p^ction so as 1^ the High Court to datermine on the face of the rccord th^ inferior Court has commltted any of the errors fallure of Justice, Certlorari under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India Is issued for correcting the gross errors of Jurjsdjction j.e. a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdlction - by GSSuiTiini jurisdiction there none, or (ii) in of its jurisdiction by over steppjng or crossing ths limits of jurisdiction, or (ili) acting in flagrant disiu5egord of IGW or tha rutes of procBdure or acting in vjobtlon of principtes of natural justice where there is no V... procedure specjfied, and thereby occasioning failure of the is and on the of the proceedings such as wh©nit is based on clear ignorance or utter djsregard of the provlsions of law or grave injustice or qross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 6- Therefore, in view of the above prindpie hid down by the Hon'bie Apex Court and what has discussed above, I am of the opinion that the learned Sub-ordlnate Court is not acted in any manner, which is fiagrant violution of iaw and is not acted in a manner in which he has exceeded It^ jurisdiction. ThBrefore, in my opinion, no is out for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitlon ss iiable to be di^mi^sed and accordingly, it is dismi^sed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Subbu •J^