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