The Court emphasizes the necessity of a specific withdrawal application under Order XXXIII Rule 9 CPC before seeking court fee deposit.
In a significant judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the decision of the trial court to reject an application filed by the defendants in a civil suit, which sought a direction for the plaintiff to deposit the requisite court fee before leading further evidence. The case, involving the legal heirs of Late Shri Sanjay Negi against the State of Uttarakhand, revolved around the plaintiff's status as an indigent person.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Siddhartha Sah emphasized the procedural requirements under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, particularly Order XXXIII Rule 9, which governs the withdrawal of permission to sue as an indigent person. The judgment reiterated that any application seeking such withdrawal must explicitly request it; otherwise, consequential applications like demanding court fee deposits are not maintainable.
The background of the case reveals that the plaintiff, initially declared indigent and exempted from court fee, was challenged by the defendants following revelations during cross-examination about the plaintiff's financial status, including pension receipts. However, the defendants' failure to specifically request the withdrawal of indigent status in their application led to its rejection by the trial court, a stance now affirmed by the High Court.
Justice Sah noted that the trial court had conducted a thorough preliminary inquiry into the plaintiff's financial status before granting indigent status, and the defendants' subsequent application lacked the necessary legal foundation for reconsideration. The High Court also provided the defendants with the liberty to file a fresh, appropriately framed application under Order XXXIII Rule 9 CPC, ensuring any new application would be decided promptly.
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in civil litigation, particularly concerning the status of indigent persons and the conditions under which such status can be challenged or revoked.
Bottom line:-
Application under Order XXXIII Rule 9 of CPC for withdrawal of permission to sue as an indigent person must explicitly seek such withdrawal. A consequential application directing the plaintiff to deposit court fee is not maintainable unless permission to sue as an indigent person is first withdrawn.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXIII Rule 9
