Mathai M. Paikeday v. C.K.

Antony, (2011) 13 SCC 174.

Submitted by: Subiyah Hafeez Siddiqui

Roll. No. 17093
Group No. 18
 BRIEF FACTS
• Appellant had filed two suits for recovery of money against the
respondent. These suits were decreed in his favour.
• Aggrieved respondent appealed before the High Court and also
petitioned to prosecute the appeal as an indigent person under
Order 44.
• High Court without conducting any inquiry permitted the
respondent to institute the appeal as an indigent person.
• Supreme Court directed the High Court to conduct inquiry, when
presented with the matter. After conducting inquiry High Court
decreed in respondent’s favour.
• Aggrieved by the same, appellant appealed before the Supreme
Court.
 Issue Raised Provisions Applicable
 Issue raised before the court  Order 33 Rule 1.
was whether the respondent is  Order 44.
an indigent person as not
possessed of sufficient means
to pay the court fee.
ANALYSIS
 Object Of Provision In
Consonance With The Judgment
◦Provision is based on the principle that access to justice
cannot be denied merely because he does not have the
means to pay the prescribed fee.

◦Principle of ubi jus ibi remedium.

◦A.A. Haja Muniuddin v. Indian Railways.

 Jurisprudential Impact
◦ The factors such as person's employment status and total income
including retirement benefits in the form of pension, ownership of
realizable unencumbered assets, and person's total indebtedness
and financial assistance received from the family member or close
friends could be taken into account.

◦ It advanced a new dimension to determine an indigent person.

◦Leema M.L.Balis v. Renjith Singh

◦Sri U.Mahabala Shetty v. Shriram Investments Ltd

◦Sujatha Venkatesan v. Manjula Srinivasan

THANK YOU