Case title:
Solomon Selvaraj Vs Indrani Bhagawan Singh
Date of Order:
2nd December, 2022
Bench:
Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh
Parties:
Petitioner- Solomon Selvaraj
Respondent- Indrani Bhagawan Singh
SUBJECT
The Supreme Court noted that if it is determined that the lawsuit is preempted by res judicata, an application to sue as an indigent under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be denied.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
ORDER XXXIII SUITS BY INDIGENT PERSONS - RULE 1
- ● Any lawsuit may be brought by an indigent person, subject to the ensuing restrictions.
- ● Explanation I:
A person is considered indigent if he or she:
(a) lacks the financial resources (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject of the lawsuit) to pay the legal filing fee for the plaint in such a lawsuit; or
(b) In the absence of a stipulated fee, if the plaintiff is not entitled to any property valued at $1,000 other than the subject of the lawsuit and property free from attachment in accordance with a court order.
- ● Explanation II:
Any property that a person acquires after filing a request to be allowed to sue as an indigent person but before the application is decided upon must be taken into consideration when determining whether or not the applicant qualifies as an indigent person.
- ● Explanation III:
In cases where the plaintiff is acting as a representative, the issue of whether he is indigent is assessed in light of the resources he has access to in that role.
BRIEF FACTS
- ● In this matter, the plaintiffs asked to be given permission to file a lawsuit in accordance with Order 33 rule 1 CPC.
- ● On the grounds that the litigation was frivolous, a misuse of the court and legal system, and that res judicata barred it, the Trial Court rejected the application.
- ● After the Madras High Court upheld this order, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED
The main issues raised here were:
- Could the Trial Court have denied the application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC to suit as indigent persons on the aforementioned ground?
- What order can be made even in cases where the application to suit as an indigent person is denied, and what remedy is available to the plaintiff/(s)?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- ● The plaintiffs-appellants argued that the Trial Court was not authorised to express an opinion on the merits of the case, including whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed and/or whether the case is preempted by res judicata, at the time it was considering the application to sue as an indigent person.
- ● It was said that at the most, the court may deny the request to proceed as an indigent plaintiff.
- ● In that instance, the plaintiffs could pay the necessary court costs and the case would then move forward.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
The respondents-defendants defended the disputed orders and asserted that the litigation was barred by res judicata and therefore subject to dismissal.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- ● The bench noted relevant clauses from Order 33 CPC. It was noted that a request submitted under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC for permission to sue as an indigent person may be denied on the reasons specified in Order 33 Rule 5 CPC.
- ● The court made it plain that any opinions stated by the Trial Court and the High Court about the suit being dismissed owing to res judicata and/or lack of a cause of action would only be taken into consideration when assessing the application to sue as an impoverished person.
CONCLUSION
- ● The plaintiffs were given an additional four weeks by the bench to pay the required court expenses while taking into account Order 33 Rule 15 and 15A CPC.
- ● The bench further decreed that the lawsuit shall be assumed to have been filed on the date the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was submitted, upon payment of those court expenses.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
