Kerala High Court: Suppression Of Assets By Person Suing As An Indigent Person Indicates Intent To Not Pay Court Fee By Playing 'Fraud' On Court
The Kerala High Court dismissed an Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC assailing the rejection of a plaint for non-payment of balance Court fee.
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that suppression of the assets held by a person suing as an indigent person indicates that the said person hid their assets, knowing fully well that disclosure of said assets would prima facie show the capacity to pay the Court fee.
The Court dismissed an Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC by the Plaintiff assailing the rejection of his plaint for non-payment of balance Court fee. The Bench upheld the decision of the Trial Court to reject the plaint after noting that Order 33 Rule 5(b) specifically authorises Courts to reject an application, when the applicant is not an indigent person.
A Single Bench of Justice A Badharudeen held, “However, in the interest of justice and in order to facilitate the plaintiff/appellant to proceed with the suit after paying the balance court fee, I am inclined to grant two weeks time from today to the plaintiff/appellant to pay the balance court fee before the trial court. On payment of balance court fee, within two weeks as directed, the suit rejected by the trial court will stand revived for adjudication.”
Advocate Vinoy Varghese Kallumoottill appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Thyparambil Thomas represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIII Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking permission to sue as an indigent person, claiming that he had no regular employment and income to pay the balance court fee. The Defendant opposed the it stating that the Plaintiff owned 93 cents of land, a hotel complex, and was engaged in the real estate business, demonstrating his capacity to pay the court fee.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held that “suppression of the assets held by the person, who wants to sue as an indigent person is a clear indication to hold that the said person hided his assets, knowing fully well that disclosure of his assets would show prima facie, his capacity to pay the Court fee.”
By invoking Order 33 Rule 5(b), the Bench explained that Courts have the power to reject an application filed under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC. “Similarly, an application filed under Order 44 Rule 1 of CPC, subject to Order 44 Rule 3, also liable to be rejected for non-disclosure of all the assets of the plaintiff/appellant,” it further explained.
The Court referred to its decision in Thachireth Matathil Abdul Sathar v. Manoj Kumar (2021) wherein it was held that “if a person is having sufficient means as his own, the Court can reject an application of this nature. However, when the ownership of movables attached from the residential house of the petitioner is the plank on which the question of sufficient means is arrived at, proof of ownership is absolutely necessary.”
The Bench stated that “the trial court found suppression of immovable assets held by the plaintiff, as against the mandate of Order 33 Rule 2 and eventually the Court found that the plaintiff herein is a person capable of paying the court fee to the tune of Rs.1,00,339/-, where the plaintiff initially paid Rs.11,149/- being 1 /10 of the court fee payable.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the discussion, in the instant case, the trial court rightly dismissed I.A. No.1982/2013 and also rejected the plaint subsequently for non payment of balance court fee. Therefore, the order and the verdict of the trial court are only to be justified.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: G.Giri v. G.Geetha (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:10750)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate TJ Mahanta
Respondent: Senior Advocate M Kechii; Additional Advocate General D. Mazumdar; Additional Senior Government Advocate A. Chandran; Government Advocate T. Khro