2019 INSC 0015
       REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.117 OF 2019
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19516 of 2014]
Sushil Thomas Abraham  ... Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s Skyline Build. Thr.
Its Partner & Ors.               … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final
judgment and order dated 10.03.2014  passed by the
High   Court   of   Kerala   at   Ernakulam   in   CMC
No.78/2011 in RFA No…./2011 whereby the Division
1

Bench of the High Court dismissed the CMC petition
filed by the appellant herein.
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass as
would  be  clear   from   their   narration   infra   so  also   the
controversy which is involved in this appeal is a short
one.
4. The   appellant   is   the   plaintiff   and   the
respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of
which this appeal arises.
5. The   appellant   filed   a   civil   suit   against   the
respondents in the Court of 1 st
 Additional Sub­Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram   being   OP   (indigent)   No.   38/96
for   recovery   of   Rs.74,66,107/­.   This   suit   was   filed
under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   Code”).   The
appellant alleged that he is unable to pay   ad valorem
court   fees   of   Rs.3,96,610/­     which   was   payable   by
2

him   on   the   claim   made   in   the   suit   and   therefore   he
be   granted   permission   to   institute   the   suit   as   an
indigent person.
6. The   respondents   (defendants)   contested   the
claim   by   filing   written   statement   and   denied   the
appellant’s claim including his prayer to declare him
as an "indigent person".
7.   According   to   the   respondents,   the   appellant
was in a position to pay the   ad valorem   court fees of
Rs.3,96,610/­ on the plaint because he had sufficient
means   to   pay   the   ad   valorem   court   fees .   The
respondents   contended   that   the   appellant   was,
therefore,   not   entitled   to   claim   the   status   of   an
"indigent   person"   within   the   meaning   of   Order   33
Rule 1 Explanation I (a) & (b) of the Code for filing a
suit under Order 33 of the Code.
3

8. The   Trial   Court   by   order   dated   19.08.1998
rejected   the   prayer   made   by   the   appellant   (plaintiff)
for   filing   a   suit   as   an   "indigent   person"   under   Order
33 Rule 1 of the Code. In other words, the Trial Court
held that the appellant failed to make out a case that
he   is   an   "indigent   person"   and,   therefore,   he   cannot
be allowed to file a suit as an “indigent person” under
Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code.
9. The plaintiff (appellant herein) felt aggrieved and
filed   appeal   against   the   aforementioned   order   of   the
Trial   Court   in   the   High   Court   being   CMA   No.248   of
1998.   By   order   dated   22.02.2000,   the   High   Court
dismissed   the   appeal   and   upheld   the   order   of   the
Trial Court.  The High Court granted the plaintiff one
month time to pay the requisite  ad valorem  court fees
on the plaint. 
4

10. The   plaintiff   then   converted   his   suit   in   the
Original   Suit   (OS   No.227/2000).     He   also   filed
another Civil Suit (OS No.921/95) seeking therein the
declaration  and injunction  against  the defendants in
relation   to   the   subject   matter   of   the   first   suit.   Both
the suits were clubbed together for trial. By judgment
and   decree   dated   12.04.2011,   the   Trial   Court
dismissed the suits. 
11. The   plaintiff   (appellant)   felt   aggrieved   and   filed
an   application   accompanied   by   the   memorandum   of
appeal   before   the   High   Court   of   Kerala   under   Order
44   Rule   1   of   the   Code.   The   appellant   alleged   in   the
application   that   his   financial   condition   is   further
deteriorated   from   what   it   was   earlier   when   he   had
filed   a   civil   suit   and,   therefore,   he   is   unable   to   pay
the   ad   valorem   court   fees   on   the   memorandum   of
appeal. 
5

12. The   plaintiff   (appellant),   therefore,   prayed   that
he   be   allowed   to   file   the   first   appeal   against   the
decree   of   the   trial   court   as   an   "indigent   person"
under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code without payment
of   ad   valorem   court   fees   payable   on   the
memorandum of appeal.
13. By impugned order, the High Court rejected the
application. The High Court in substance held that in
the   light   of   the   earlier   rejection   of   the   appellant’s
(plaintiff’s)   prayer   to   file   a   suit   as   an   “indigent
person”   under   Order   33   Rule   1   of   the   Code   by   the
Trial Court and the same having been upheld by the
High Court in the appeal, the plaintiff is not entitled
to   file   an   application/appeal   under   Order   44   Rule   1
of the Code against the decree of the trial court.
14.   In   other   words,   it   was   held   that   the   plaintiff
(appellant)   has   to   file   a   regular   first   appeal   under
6

Section 96 of the Code against the decree of the trial
court   on   payment   of   ad   valorem   court   fees   on   the
memorandum   of   appeal   payable   in   accordance   with
the provisions of the Court Fees Act.
15. It   is   against   this   order   of   the   High   Court,   the
plaintiff felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by
way of special leave in this Court.
16. So   the   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration   in   this   appeal,   is   whether   the   High
Court was justified in dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal
and rejecting the prayer made by the plaintiff to allow
him   to   file   an   appeal   under   Order   44   Rule   1   of   the
Code as an “indigent person”. 
17. Heard  Mr.   C.N.   Sreekumar,  learned  counsel   for
the  appellant  and Mr. Anil  Kaushik, learned counsel
for the respondents.
7

18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and   on   perusal   of   the   record   of   the   case,   we   are
inclined   to   allow   the   appeal,   set   aside   the   impugned
order   and   remand   the   case   to   the   High   Court   for
deciding the appeal afresh as directed hereinbelow.   
19.   On   perusal   of   Order   33   of   the   Code,   we   find
that   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   file   a   suit   as   an
“indigent   person”   under   Order   33   of   the   Code
provided he is able to prove that he is not possessed
of   sufficient   means   to   pay   the   requisite   court   fees
prescribed   by   law   for   the   plaint   in   the   suit   filed   by
him. 
20. The   question   as   to   whether   the   plaintiff   is
possessed   of   sufficient   means   to   pay   the   requisite
court   fees   for   the   plaint   in   the   suit   as   per   the
provisions of Court Fees Act is required to be decided
8

by holding an inquiry as prescribed under Rules 4 to
7 of Order 33 of the Code by the trial court.
21. While   examining   this   question,   the   Court
cannot   take   into   consideration   the   two   properties.
First­the   property,   which   is   exempted   from   the
attachment in execution of a decree and the second­
which   is   subject   matter   of   the   suit.   In   other   words,
the   aforementioned   two   properties   cannot   be
regarded as “possessed” by the person concerned for
determining his financial capacity to pay the requisite
court fees on his claim in the suit. 
22. Similarly,   if   the   person   concerned   acquires   any
property   after   presentation   of   the   application   for
grant   of   permission   to   sue   as   indigent   person   but
before   the   decision   is   given   on   his   application,   such
acquired property has to be taken into consideration
9

for   deciding   the   question   as   to   whether   he   is   an
indigent person or not.
23. Order 33 Rule 7(3) empowers the court to either
allow   or   refuse   to   allow   the   applicant   to   sue   as   an
indigent   person.   Rule   9   empowers   the   court   to
withdraw   the   permission   granted   under   Rule   7(3)   at
the stance of defendant or State counsel if any of the
grounds   set   out   in   clauses   (a)   to   (c)   is   made   out.
Order 33 Rule 11 as amended by the State of Kerala
inter   alia   provides   that   when   the   plaintiff   is
dispaupered, the Court may order the plaintiff to pay
the   requisite   court   fees   within   a   time   fixed   by   the
Court.
24. Order   44   of   the   Code   applies   to   appeals.   By
virtue of Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code, the provisions
of Order 33 are made applicable to such appeals. 
10

25. Order   44   Rule   3   (1)   of   the   Code   prescribes   the
procedure in relation to the inquiry which is required
to   be   held   to   decide   the   question   as   to   whether   the
applicant, who has filed the application/appeal under
Order   44,   can   be   declared   as   an   indigent   person   or
not.   The   Rule   says   that   where   the   applicant   is
already   allowed   by   the   Trial   Court   to   sue   as   an
indigent   person   then   in   such   circumstances,   no
further   inquiry   in   respect   of   the   question   as   to
whether he is an indigent person or not is necessary
provided such person files an affidavit stating therein
that he has not ceased to be an indigent person since
the date of decree appealed from. 
26. However, if the  government lawyer  disputes the
statement of the applicant made in the affidavit, then
the   inquiry   into   the   question   as   to   whether   he   is   an
11

indigent person or not shall be held by the Appellate
Court or Officer of the Court.
27.        Order 44 Rule 3(2) of the Code provides that
where the applicant referred to in Order 33 Rule 11 is
alleged to have become indigent person since the date
of the decree appealed from then the Appellate Court
shall hold an inquiry into the question as to whether
the   applicant   has   become   an   indigent   person   or   not
since the date of decree appealed from. The Appellate
Court in its discretion can also direct the Trial Court
which   passed   the   decree   appealed   from   to   hold   an
inquiry on such question.
28. Having   examined   the   scheme   of   Orders   33   and
44 of the Code and the facts of this case, we find that
the   case   of   the   appellant   (plaintiff)   falls   in   Order   33
Rule 11 read with Order 44 Rule 3(2) of the Code.  
12

29. Though the appellant (plaintiff) was not allowed
by the Trial Court/High Court in the earlier round of
litigation   to   institute   a   suit   as   an   indigent   person
under   Order   33   Rule   1   of   the   Code,   yet   in   our
considered   opinion,   he   was   entitled   to   file   an
application/appeal   under   Order   44   Rule   1   of   the
Code   and   seek   permission   from   the   Appellate   Court
to allow him to file an appeal as an indigent person.
30.   In   our   view,   the   dismissal   of   application   made
under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code by the Trial Court
in   the   earlier   round   of   litigation   is   not   a   bar   against
the plaintiff to file an application/appeal under Order
44   Rule   1   of   the   Code   before   the   Appellate   Court.
The   grant   and   rejection   of   such   prayer   by   the   Trial
Court is confined only  up to the disposal of the suit.
This is clear from the reading of Rule 3(1) and 3(2) of
Order 44, which contemplate holding of inquiry again
13

into the question at the appellate stage as to whether
the   applicant   is   an   indigent   person   or   not   since   the
date from the decree appealed from. 
31. Once   the   plaintiff   files   an   appeal   under   Order
44 of the Code, his case is governed by the provisions
of   Order   44.   The   applicant   to   whom   the   permission
was   granted   or   declined  by   the  trial   court  is  entitled
to   apply   before   the   appellate   court   to   allow   him   to
continue with the status or grant the status so as to
enable   him   to   prosecute   the   appeal   as   an   indigent
person 
32. This is subject to applicant filing an affidavit as
required   under   Order   44   Rule   3(1)   where   the   status
is granted to him by the trial court. If the averments
in   his   affidavit   are   controverted   by   the   State,   an
inquiry into the status of the applicant as to whether
he   is   an   indigent   person   since   the   date   of   decree
14

appealed from is mandatory at the appellate stage as
contemplated under Order 44 Rule 3(1). 
33. So   far   as   Clause   (2)   of   Order   44   Rule   3   of   the
Code is concerned, it deals with the cases where the
applicant   was   declined   the   status   of   an   indigent
person by the trial court in the suit. In such case, the
applicant   is  entitled  to   say  that  he  is  or  has  become
an indigent person since the date of decree appealed
from   and,   therefore,   entitled   to   prosecute   the   appeal
as  an   indigent   person.  In  such  case  also,  an  inquiry
is required to be held to decide his status. 
34. We   cannot,   therefore,   concur   with   the   view
taken by the High Court because the High Court did
not hold any inquiry as contemplated under Order 44
Rule   3(2)   of   the   Code   and   dismissed   the   appellant's
application made under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code
mainly   on   the   ground   that   since   the   appellant   was
15

declined   permission   to   institute   the   suit   as   an
indigent   person   by   the   Trial   Court   in   the   earlier
round  and such rejection having been upheld by the
High   Court   in   appeal,   he   cannot   be   permitted   to   file
an   application/appeal   under   Order   44   Rule   1   of   the
Code   as   an   indigent   person   in   appeal.   In   our   view,
this reasoning of the High Court is not in conformity
with   the   Order   33   read   with   Order   44   and   hence
cannot be upheld in the light of our discussion made
above.
35. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   the   appeal
succeeds   and  is   accordingly   allowed.     The  impugned
order   is   set   aside.   The   case   is   remanded   to   the
Appellate   Court   for   holding   an   inquiry   as
contemplated  under  Order  44 Rule 3 (2)  of the  Code
or   by   the   Trial   Court,   if   directed   by   the   Appellate
Court   to   the   concerned   Trial   Court   to   do   so   and
16

depending   upon   the   case   made   out   by   the
applicant/appellant   in   the   inquiry,   the   Appellate
Court will pass appropriate orders accordingly. 
36. In other  words, if the appellant is able to  prove
in   the   inquiry   with   the   aid   of   evidence   that   he   is   or
has   become   an   indigent   person   since   the   date   of
decree   appealed   from   and   is   therefore   unable   to   pay
the  ad valorem  court fees on memorandum of appeal,
his application will be allowed else dismissed. 
37. Let   the   Appellate   Court   decide   the   aforesaid
question   preferably   within   six   months   and   then
proceed   to   decide   the   appeal   accordingly   in
accordance with law.
38. Before   parting,   we   may   observe   that   since   the
appellant (plaintiff) was not allowed to file suit as an
indigent person by the trial court and the said order
became final, he was required to pay  the   ad  valorem
17

court   fees   on   the   plaint   to   enable   the   trial   court   to
decide   the   suit  on   merits.     The  Court  will,   therefore,
verify   as   to   whether   the   plaintiff   paid   the   said
ad valorem   court fee in the trial court or not.   If it is
found   that   he   has   not   yet   paid   the   said   court   fees,
then   the   same   be   recovered   from   the   appellant
(plaintiff)   in   accordance   with   the   procedure   provided
under Order 33 of the Code.
     ……………………………… ..J.
      (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)
            ..………………………………J.
     (INDU MALHOTRA)
New Delhi,
January  07, 2019
18