Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Solomon Selvaraj and Ors. vs. Indirani Bhagawan Singh and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (02 Dec 2022)

Application for permission to sue as an indigent person could not be allowed, if the allegations in the plaint could not show any cause of action

MANU/SC/1564/2022

Civil

The original applicants – Plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting an application filed by the Appellants seeking leave to file the suit as indigent persons.

From the scheme of Order 33 CPC, it emerges that the application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC seeking permission to sue as indigent person can be rejected on the grounds mentioned in Order 33 Rule 5 CPC. It includes that the allegations in the application would not show cause of action …… or that the allegations made by the applicant in the applications show that the suit would be barred by law for the time being in force (Order 33 Rule 5(d) & (f) CPC). Identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of Kamu Alias Kamala Ammal. While considering Order 33 Rule 5, CPC, it is observed and held that the application for permission to sue as an indigent person has to be rejected and could not be allowed if the allegations in the plaint could not show any cause of action.

When having prima facie found that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by res judicata, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court committed any error in rejecting the application to sue as indigent persons.

Any observations made by the learned Trial Court and the High Court that the suit is barred by res judicata and/or on no cause of action shall be treated confine to deciding the application to sue as indigent person only. However, at the same time it will be open for the defendants to file an appropriate application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and/or any other application to reject the plaint and as and when such application is/are filed, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court while rejecting the application to sue as indigent persons. Present appeal stands disposed of.

Tags : APPLICATION   INDIGENT PERSONS   REJECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved