Bench:
S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju
Issue:
Whether to charge court fee or not for the appellant who is an indigent person.
Facts:
- Dev, the appellant is a person living in Kerala and loses his eyesight during a political vendetta.
- Along with the loss of eyesight, he also had many facial injuries as an acid bulb was thrown at his face.
- He filed a suit to claim for the damages caused to him against the State of Kerala.
- The person who threw the acid bulb was let free without any criminal charges.
- Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant stating the suit was barred by limitation of time and appellant in no way has established that there was a duty to the police to give protection to him.
- Appeal was then filed In High Court, by mentioning himself as an Indigent person, but High Court dismissed the petition stating it was barred by limitation.
- Aggrieved by the judgments of the previous court, the appellant filed a suit in Supreme Court against the State of Kerala.
Appellant’s Contentions:
The appellant contends that by referring Order 33 of C.P.C, failure in the case cannot be made equal with dismissal of a case, because dismissal of a suit is dealt separately under the clauses (a) & (b) of Rule 11. The petitioner states that the case does not fall in accordance or in relation with Rule 11 of Order 33 of C.P.C.
Respondent’s Contentions:
The Respondent states that the claim of the appellant cannot be sanctioned and Order 33 should be invoked, as failure and dismissal both falls under the same context. The petitioner should be held responsible for the Court fee and he cannot deny by stating himself as Indigent.
Judgment:
The Court held the Plaintiff to pay the Court fee by invoking Rule 10 & 11 from Order 33 of C.P.C. The court didn’t direct the defendant to pay the Court fee.
“The decision relied on by the learned counsel therefore is itself an authority for the proposition that in a case where Rule 11 of Order XXXIII is attracted, the Court cannot direct the defendant to pay the court fee and it must be paid by the plaintiff or the co-plaintiff.
We, therefore, are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” said the Supreme Court of India.
