Certificate From Revenue Authorities Need Not Be Accepted As Conclusive Proof To Declare A Person As ‘Indigent’: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court held that a certificate from the revenue authorities of the Government department need not be accepted as a conclusive proof to declare a person as ‘indigent’.

The Court held thus in a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) filed by a person seeking permission to file the Original Side Appeal (OSA) in the capacity of an indigent person.

A Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed, “… Order XLIV Rule 3(2) indicates that the Appellate Court by itself decide the indigency of a person or appoint an officer of that Court to conduct an inquiry, which is to be read in continuation of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, mere production of a certificate from the revenue authorities of the Government department may be considered as a document for the purpose of considering the case of the indigent person. But it need not be accepted as a conclusive proof to declare a person as indigent.”

The Bench added that any such certificate obtained from an authority of the Government department may be relied on for the purpose of establishing the indigent circumstances, but such a certificate cannot be a conclusive proof for arriving at a decision that the person is indigent.

“To conclude the issue, the Court has to conduct an independent inquiry by itself or by appointing an officer of that Court. The Court or the officer of that Court appointed has to conduct an inquiry by following the established procedures and form an opinion for the purpose of declaring the person as indigent. On receipt of report, the Court independently takes a decision both on facts and law”, it also enunciated.

Advocate D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate P.R. Raman represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

A suit instituted by the Respondent company seeking a direction to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,01,62,284/- along with interest, was decreed. Challenging this, an OSA was preferred. Along with OSA, CMP seeking permission to sue as an indigent person, was instituted. The counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has no sufficient means to pay the Court fee, which is approximately about Rs. 22,80,000/-. It was further contended that since he has no source of income, permission is to be granted to prefer the OSA as an indigent person.

The Petitioner stated that he is not in employment after being terminated from the Respondent company and aged about 66 years. He also stated that he has no other source of income and he is living out of the help extended by his relatives and friends. On the other hand, the senior counsel for the Respondent argued that the Petitioner possesses properties. It was further submitted that since the bank statements itself would be sufficient to form an opinion that the Petitioner has not made out a prima-facie case, no further inquiry is required.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “Orders XXXIII and XLIV of the Code of Civil Procedure embody the principle that financial incapacity must not bar access to justice. The scheme provides a structured mechanism for enabling indigent persons to sue and appeal without immediate payment of court fees, while simultaneously incorporating safeguards through inquiries, affidavits, and judicial scrutiny to prevent abuse.”

The Court clarified that any person filing an application seeking permission to sue as an indigent person must adduce in proof of his indigency.

“The opposite party is entitled to disprove the claim of the petitioner or approach the Court with unclean hands. Thus, Order XXXIII Rule 6 provides an opportunity for both the parties in the suit to establish and rebut their respective cases”, it said.

The Court explained that the Court dealing with the Petition has to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for conducting an inquiry under Order XXXIII or Order XLIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

“Only if a prima facie case regarding indigency is established by the petitioner, then alone an inquiry is to be conducted, but not otherwise. Based on the documents available, if the Court by itself is able to form an opinion that the petitioner seeking permission to sue as a indigent person has not established the prima facie case, then such petitions are liable to be rejected by the Court, and no further inquiry needs to be undertaken. The said position has been amply made clear under Order XXXIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure”, it further observed.

Conclusion

Coming back to the facts of the case, the Court noted that perusal of the statement of accounts in the name of the Petitioner would show that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 58,06,479.20/- and that apart, he himself admitted that he has two properties in his name and he has made no attempt to alienate the said properties.

“Therefore, the petitioner herein has not established that he has no “sufficient means” to raise funds to pay the Court fee. Thus, the present petition fails and consequently, stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pay the Court fee within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and represent the appeal before the Registry”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the CMP and rejected the OSA at the SR stage itself.

Cause Title- S. Venkatesan v. Sundaram Fasteners Limited (Case Number: CMP.No.19328 of 2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar

Respondent: Senior Advocate P.R. Raman and Advocate C. Seethapathy.

Click here to read/download the Order