DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

LUCKNOW

SUBJECT: Civil Procedure Code

SUITS BY INDIGENT PERSONS

UNDER THE

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Name – Nishant Madhur Katiyar Dr. Vipull Vinod

Enrolment No. – 220101111 Assistant Professor (Law)

Section: B

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I deeply indebted to my Civil Code Procedure law, Professor Dr. Vipull Vinod for his guidance
during the completion of my project.

I also acknowledge the Library and IT department for providing me with the resources for the
project. I also thank my classmates for providing a fruitful environment for the project.

Nishant Madhur Katiyar

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL.NO CONTENTS Pg.NO

1 INTRODUCTION 5

2 DEFINITION OF INDIGENT PERSON 5

3 OBJECT 6

4 PROCEDURE 6

5 REVOCATION OF PERMISSION 9

6 RECOVERY OF COURT FEES AND COSTS 10

7 CONCLUSION 11

8 REFERENCE 12

3
 TABLE OF CASES

1. A. A. HajaMuniuddin v. Indian Railways, (1992) 4 SCC 736

2. Ananga Bhusan v. Ghanashyam, AIR 1951

3. Manglu Chattar v. Maheshwar Bhoi, AIR 1981 Ori 153

4. RL Nathan v PK Oiha, AIR 1976 Pat 127

5. Union bank of India v. Khader International Construction, (2001) 5 SCC 22

6. Venkatasubbaiah v. Thirupathiah, AIR 1955 AP 165: 1955 ALT 198

4
 SUITS BY INDIGENT PERSONS

INTRODUCTION

The Civil Procedure Code of 1980 serves as a comprehensive guide delineating the
procedures essential for the enforcement of rights and liabilities within legal proceedings. This
code, structured for efficacy, bifurcates these procedures into two main categories: suits in
general cases and suits in particular cases.

When delving into suits in particular cases, the code meticulously covers the legal framework
through Sections 79 to 93 and Orders 27 to 37. These sections and orders are designed to offer
specificity and clarity in addressing the nuances of various legal scenarios.

One significant provision within this legal framework is Order 33, which is dedicated to
facilitating the filing of suits by indigent persons. Typically, when individuals initiate legal
action, they are required to pay court fees as stipulated by the Court Fees Act. However, Order
33 introduces an exemption for indigent persons, relieving them of this financial burden at the
outset of the legal process.

This exemption is subject to certain conditions outlined within the order. Indigent persons
must satisfy these conditions to qualify for the waiver of court fees when initiating legal
proceedings. By providing this avenue, the legal system aims to ensure access to justice for
economically disadvantaged individuals, thereby upholding the principle of equity within the
legal realm.

WHO IS AN INDIGENT PERSON?

Generally, indigent means very poor, needy, poverty -stricken. Simply indigent person means
a person having no money or anything else of value. The word indigent person was substituted
by Act 104 of 1976 for the word pauper. Explanation I of Rule 1 of the order defines indigent
person as a person who does not possess of sufficient means to pay the fee prescribed by law
or person who is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees if no such fee is
prescribed.

Here the property excludes the property which is attached in execution of decree and the
subject matter of the suit and the property which acquired by a person after filing of his
application to sue as an indigent person and before the decision of such application will be

5
taken into consideration to decide whether the person can sue as an indigent person . Not only
natural person but also a Juristic person can avail the application under order 33. This was
stated in a landmark case Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction.

OBJECT:

The order has been enacted to serve a triple purpose namely,

1) To protect bona fide claims of an indigent person.

2) To safeguard interest of revenue.

3) To protect defendant from harassment.

A. A. Haja Muniuddin v. Indian Railways , in this case the court has observed that access to
justice cannot be denied to an individual merely because he does not have the means to pay
the prescribed fee.

PROCEDURE:

PRESENATION OF APPLICATION

INQUIRY AND EXAMINATION

REJECTION OF NOTICE OF DAY FOR

APPLICATION RECEIVING EVIDENCCE

HEARING

WHEN PERMISSION WHEN PERMISSION

REJECTED GRANTED

BAR TO SUBSEQUENT
ADMISSION
APPLICATION

6
 TIME FOR PAYMENT OF ASSIGNING A
COURT FEE PLEADER

PRESENTATION OF APPLICATION: (RULE 3 OF ORDER 33)

An application for permission to sue as an indigent person containing the following,

 The particulars required in regard to plaints in suits

 A schedule containing any movable and immovable property belonging to the
applicant with the estimated value of the property should be annexed with the
application.
 And it should be duly signed and verified by the applicant in the manner prescribed for
the signing and verification of pleadings (Rule 14 and 15 of Order 6).

should be presented by the applicant himself in the court, if the applicant is exempted from
appearing in the court then an authorized agent who can answer all the questions relating to
the application can present the application in the court. In case of more than one plaintiff any
one of the plaintiff can present the application in the court.

INQUIRY: (RULE 1-A)

Inquiry is the first step after the presentation of application. An inquiry into the means of the
applicant should be made at the first instance by the chief ministerial officer of the court and
he should submit a report to the court. The court may adopt the report submitted by such
officer or may make an inquiry on its own and decided accordingly.

EXAMINATION OF APPLICANT: (Rule 4 of Order 33)

After verifying the application submitted by the applicant is in proper form and duly presented
according to Rule 2 and 3 of Order 33, the court if it thinks necessary may examine the
applicant or his agent regarding,

1. The merits of the claim.

2. And the property of the applicant.

If the application is presented by agent, if the court thinks fit may ask the commission to
examine the applicant in a way an absent witness will be examined. Manglu Chattar v.

7
Maheshwar Bhoi, in this case the appellant possessed of weaving tools and materials, they are
all weavers and their weaving materials consist of tools of artisans and they get daily wages.
The court held that these properties and their daily wages are not to be taken into
consideration to find out whether they will be able to pay the court fee. On the aforesaid
analysis, the court held that the appellants could sue as indigent persons.

REJECTION OF APPLICATION: (Rule 5 of Order 33)

After the examination of applicant, the court can either reject or accept the application
for permission to sue as an indigent person. It is the discretion of the court which it deems fit
either to accept or reject the application. The grounds in which the application can be rejected
are given under rule 5 of order 33. The following are the grounds in which the court can reject
an application for permission to sue as an indigent person.

1) When the application presented does not contain the requisites mentioned under
rule 2.
2) When the application was not presented in the manner prescribed under rule 3.
3) If the applicant disposed any of his property fraudulently or to sue as an indigent
person within two months before the date of presentation of application. (this
clause is not applicable if the applicant is still entitled to sue as an indigent person
even after taking into consideration property disposed by the applicant)
4) If there is no cause of action in his allegation.
5) When any other person has obtained an interest over the subject matter of the suit
by way of agreement with the applicant.
6) If the proposed suit is barred by any law for time being in force.
7) If any other person has agreed to finance the litigation.

NOTICE OF DAY FOR RECEIVING EVIDENCE: (RULE 6 OF ORDER 33)

If the court sees that there is no reason to reject the application on the grounds mentioned
under Rule 5, then the court shall fix a day and notice of such shall be given to the opposite
party and to the government pleader at least 10 days before of the fixed date, for receiving
evidence as the applicant may adduce in proof of his indigency or in disproof thereof by the
opposite party or by the Government Pleader.

HEARING: (RULE 7 OF ORDER 33)

8
On the fixed date the court may examine the witness (if any) relating to the matters mentioned
under clause (b), (c) and (e) of rule 5. The court may also examine the applicant or his agent
relating to any of the matters mentioned under rule 5. The court shall also hear any arguments
by the parties. After hearing all the matters the court shall either allow or refuse to allow the
applicant to sue as an indigent person.

ADMISSION OF APPLICATION: (RULE 8 OF ORDER 33)

If the court grants permission to sue as an indigent person, the application should be
numbered and registered and it should be considered as a plaint in the suit. Then the suit by an
indigent person will proceed in the ordinary manner just like any other suits. The difference
will be that the plaintiff is not liable to pay any court fees.

ASSIGNING A PLEADER TO UNREPRESENTED INDIGENT PERSON: (RULE 9A

OF ORDER 33)

If the indigent person is no represented by a pleader and the court, if it thinks that the
circumstances of the case require a pleader then the court may assign a pleader to the indigent
person who is not represented. After this the case will proceeded in an ordinary manner like
other suits and the case will be decided.

BAR TO SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION: (RULE 15 OF ORDER33)

Once the court rejects the application to sue as an indigent person, then such rejection shall act
as a bar to present any subsequent similar application. However, the applicant can sue in an
ordinary manner, by paying the costs incurred by state government and the opposite party in
opposing his application at the time of the institution of such suit or within the time the court
allowed. If such costs are not paid, then the court shall reject the plaint.

GRANT TIME FOR PAYMENT OF COURT FEE: (RULE 15A OF ORDER 33)

Rule 15 A gives power to the court to grant further time to the applicant for the payment of
court fee. On payment of court fees and the costs referred in rule 15 within the given time, it is
considered that the suit is instituted from the date of the presentation of application for
permission to sue as an indigent person.

REVOCATION OF PERMISSION: (RULE 9 OF ORDER 33)

9
The permission granted by the court to the applicant to sue as an indigent person can be
withdrawn by the court on the application either by the defendant or by the government
pleader. But it is not compulsory for the court to revoke permission on such application, it is
the discretion of the court to dispauper the plaintiff or not. If the court decides to withdraw the
permission granted then a notice containing the order that the permission granted to the
plaintiff to sue as an indigent person be withdrawn should be given to the plaintiff before
seven days of such withdrawal. The permission can be withdrawn in the following cases,

1. If he is guilty of vexatious or improper conduct in the course of the suit.

2. If it appears that his means are such that he ought not to continue to sue as an indigent
person.
3. If he has entered into any agreement with reference to the subject matter of the suit
under which any other person has obtained an interest in such subject matter.

If the permission granted was withdrawn by the court under the conditions mentioned under
rule 9 then the court shall order the plaintiff to pay the court fees which he would have been
paid if permission to sue as an indigent person was granted to him.

RECOVERY OF COURT FEES AND COSTS:

The costs of the application for permission to sue as an indigent person and the costs incurred
in the process of inquiry into the indigency of the applicant are the costs in the suit Where the
indigent person succeeds: the court will calculate the amount of court fees as if the suit is
instituted in an ordinary manner and such amount is recoverable by the state government from
any party ordered by the court.This rule applies only when the suit is permitted to be instituted
in forma pauperis. Where the indigent person fails: the court will order the plaintiff to pay the
court fees which the applicant would be paid if permission to sue as an indigent person was
not granted. Where the suit abates: because of death of the plaintiff or of any other reason the
court will recover the court fees from the estate of the deceased person.

10
CONCLUSION:

It is necessary for the government to charge people for filing a case in a court to avoid
unnecessary cases and to prevent them from wasting the court’s time. But India is a country
where there are more middle class and poor people than that of a rich people so paying the
court fee is a big deal for those people who are working for daily wages and full filling their
basic necessity. Order 33 provides a way for those people who are in need, to get justice by
way of exempting them from paying the court fees. The court makes necessary inquiries and
examination to decide a person’s indigency and gives permission to sue as an indigent person.
Order 33 has so much important which provides justice for poor people.

11
REFERENCE:

1) C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, Eighth

Edition,2017.
2) https://lawtimesjournal.in/suits-by-indigent-persons-interpleader-suits/ (last visited on
Sep 19, 2020)
3) http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1279/Suits-by-indigent-person.html (last
visited on Sep 19, 2020)
4) https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Order-XXXIII-CPC-
%E2%80%98Suits-By-Indigent-Persons%E2%80%99.pdf
5) https://ijrar.com/upload_issue/ijrar_issue_540.pdf
6) http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2210-legal-aid-under-the-code-of-civil-
procedure-1908-an-analysis-of-suits-by-indigent-persons.html

12