Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, Supreme Court in the matter of Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors, Court addressed an individual, who has been granted monetary compensation but hasn't received it, could pursue an appeal for increased compensation as an indigent.

• An indigent person lacks the financial resources to cover court fees and proceed with the filed suit.

What was the Background of Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors?

• Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya (Appellant) suffered injuries in an accident and sought compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, initially claiming Rs. 10 Lakhs for permanent disablement.
• The Tribunal awarded her approximately Rs. 2 Lakhs, which the appellant contested as insufficient.
• She filed an appeal in the High Court.
• Alongside her appeal, the appellant applied for permission to proceed as an indigent person, given her financial constraints, despite being awarded compensation.
• The High Court declined her request, noting the awarded compensation, although it acknowledged that she had not received any funds yet.
• She filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court intervened, allowing the appellant to pursue her appeal as an indigent person, recognizing the delay in compensation and her ongoing financial hardship.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol referred to Order XXXIII (Suits by indigent persons) and Order XLIV (appeals by indigent persons) of the CPC, 1908.
• It is observed that the above-mentioned provisions “exemplify the cherished principle that lack of monetary capability does not preclude a person from knocking on the doors of the Court to seek vindication of his rights.
• Court State that the appellant's indigent status persisted since, despite being awarded compensation, she did not receive any funds, thus failing to alleviate her financial hardship.
• The Bench opined that the High Court was incorrect in dismissing the above-mentioned application even after recording that she had not received the compensation.
• “So even though she had been awarded a sum, her indigency was not extinguished thereby. Any which way, in our considered view, the High Court was incorrect in rejecting the Misc. Application.,” the Court said.
• The Court also noted the absence of an inquiry as mandated by Order XLIV Rule 3(2) to ascertain the indigent status of the applicant.
• Despite not initially approaching the tribunal as an indigent person, the claimant had not received the awarded money, potentially rendering her indigent at the time of filing the appeal.
• Consequently, the Court concluded that both factors warranted setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
• The court ordered the High Court that due to the significant delay; the Court permitted the appellant to pursue the appeal as an indigent person and urged the High Court to adjudicate on the matter within six months.

Who is an Indigent Person?

About

• An indigent person refers to an individual who demonstrates insufficient financial resources to meet the expenses associated with legal proceedings, including court fees and legal representation costs.
• Under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), an indigent person lacks the financial resources to pay court fees and is entitled to certain privileges such as fee exemptions or reductions as provided for in the Code.
• To ensure access to justice for such individuals, provisions were introduced under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Legal Provision

• The Court Fees Act, 1870 mandates plaintiffs to submit requisite court fees when filing a civil suit.
• Order XXXIII of the CPC provides relief to indigent persons by exempting them from paying court fees, enabling them to institute suits in forma pauperis.
• Indigent individuals seeking this exemption must meet conditions outlined in Rule 1 of Order XXXIII of CPC, allowing them access to legal recourse without the financial burden of court fees.

What is the Procedure to File a Suit as an Indigent Person?

• Rule 2 of Order XXXIII requires that before filing a suit as an indigent person, the application seeking permission must contain details akin to those in the plaint, including a comprehensive list of the applicant's assets and their estimated values.
• As per Rule 3 of Order XXXIII the indigent person must personally present the application to the court, or if exempted from appearing, may have an authorized agent do so. In cases with multiple plaintiffs, any one of them can present the application.
• As per Rule 4 of Order XXXIII the suit commences upon the presentation of the application to sue as an indigent person. The court then examines the applicant, either directly or via commission if represented by an agent.

What are the Grounds on Which the Application can be Rejected under Order XXXIII?

Rule 5 of Order XXXIII of the CPC outlines grounds for prima facie rejection of an application to sue as an indigent person:

• Failure to adhere to prescribed procedures outlined in Rule 2 and Rule 3, regarding the contents and presentation of the application.
• Applicant not meeting the criteria of indigency.
• Applicant's fraudulent disposal of property or dishonest motive in seeking permission to sue as an indigent person.
• Absence of a cause of action.
• Applicant entering agreements affecting the subject matter of the suit with third parties. Suit being barred by law.
• Financial assistance received from another party for litigation. Provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 regarding discovery of documents being applicable to proceedings under Order XXXIII.
• Precedents indicating similarity between rejection under Order XXXIII Rule 5 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
• Procedures under Rules 6 to 9 for examination of evidence and admission of the application, followed by subsequent treatment of the application as a plaint in a suit.

What is Order XLIV Rule 3(2)?

• Order XLIV deals with appeal by Indigent Person.
• Order XLIV Rule 3 deals with 3. Inquiry as to whether applicant is an indigent person.
• Order XLIV Rule 3 (2) state that Where the applicant, referred to in rule 11, is alleged to have become an indigent person since the date of the decree appealed from, the inquiry into the question whether or not he is an indigent person shall be made by the Appellate Court or, under the orders of the Appellate Court, by an officer of that Court unless the Appellate Court considers it necessary in the circumstances of the case that the inquiry should be held by the Court from whose decision the appeal is preferred.

Which is a Relevant Case dealing with Order XXXIII?

• Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction & Ors., (2001) Court held that if the suit is decreed for the plaintiff, the court fee would be calculated as if the plaintiff had not originally filed the suit as an indigent person.
  • So, there is only a provision for the deferred payment of the court fees and this benevolent provision is intended to help the poor litigants who are unable to pay the requisite court fee to file a suit because of their poverty.