Suits By

Indigent Person
Rajdeep Bishnoi & Sukrit Sood
SEC D BA LLB
2017-2022
A3211116283 & A3211116200
 The article thoroughly dealt with order 33 of CPC, 1908 and provides the
benefits which are available to an indigent person under the CPC

• Order XXXIII relates to be filled by the indigent persons. An indigent person is

defined in explanation one to Rule 1 according to which is a person is an indigent
person if he is not possessed of sufficient means other than property exempted from
attachment in execution of the degree, to enable him to pay prescribed fees. An
application is to be filled along with the suit for permission to allow the applicant to
file the suit as an indigent person. After due inquiry the court however may reject the
application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person on the ground
mentioned in Rule 5. A person having been declared as indigent person can be
disappeared on the ground mentioned in Rule 9. Under Rule 18 the state government
can provide free legal service to indigent person.
 Who Can File A Pauper Application?

• It was held that pauper application should be filled by only natural person and into its ambit and
scope judicial person also include. This is a settled position in UOI v. Khaders International
Construction Ltd. It is well settled that the provisions of Order XXXIII, Rule 1 CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 have been enacted to enable poor persons to seek justice by filling
suits or appeals without court fee and in this context, the sufficient means would not be
sufficient property and includes such means on which the bare living of the person who are
plaintiff and their family members is dependent. In fact what is intended is capacity to raise
funds by norm and available means and not by any means whatsoever, illegal or improper. It
cannot be the purpose of this legislation that the indigent person should first deprive himself of
the sole means of livelihood or alienate all his assets and seek justice in penury.
• If during the pendency of suit the applicant, who is an indigent person, is died, it cannot be said
that afterwards his legal heirs can get benefit.
 Meaning And Scope: Indigent Person

• The concept is well explained by the Orissa high court in the case of Manglu Chattar v.
Maheshwar Bhoi as follows, the tools of artisans are exempted from the attachment. In the
instant case according to the findings of the trial court, the appellant possessed of tools and
weaving materials and they get daily wages. Both these items are covered under the Section
60(1) of CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. There is no other evidence adduced from the
side of the defendant to show that the petitioners are possessed of any other property. Therefore
there is no dispute about the fact that the appellants are all weavers and their weaving materials
consist of tools of artisans. These properties are not to be taken into consideration to find out
whether they will be able to pay the court fee. So also the daily wages they get cannot be taken
into consideration for the aforesaid purpose. On the aforesaid analysis, it should be held that the
appellants are indigent persons and, therefore, they should be allowed to sue as indigent person.
The Supreme Court of India has settled the issue that, whether a public
company can file a suit as an indigent person while holding the
judgement of UOI v. Khader International Construction, held that, the
word “person” has to be given its meaning in the context in which it is
used. It refers to a person who is capable of filling a suit and this being a
benevolent provision; it is to be given an extended meaning. Therefore,
a public limited company, which is otherwise entitled to maintain suit as
a legal person, can every well maintain application under Order XXXIII,
Rule 1, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

The word “person” mentioned in Order XXXIII includes not only a

natural person but other judicial person also
 COST WHERE INDIGENT PERSON SUCCEEDS

• Where the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the court shall calculate the amount of court fees
which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as an
indigent person; such amount shall be recoverable by the state government from any party
Ordered by the decree to pay the same and shall be a first charge on the subject matter of
the suit.
• Such a decree is executed by the collector to institute new proceedings to pursue for the
recovery of the amount of court fee from the person or property liable to pay the court fee,
that too as arrears of land revenue hence, separate recovery proceedings cannot be pursued
in execution proceedings
But the situation is different when we
talk of Indigent person, in a situation
where a suit is filled by the indigent
person for realization of full contractual
amount from government. Decree was
passed in favour of plaintiff. Direction
was issued to defendant State
Government to pay cost of plaintiff as
liability was imposed on defendant to
pay court fee payable to Government,
hence, proceedings initiated against
plaintiff for recovery of court fee was not
maintainable.
 VIEW ON HIGH COURT

• This issue was also there for consideration before the Madras High court
in Chandrareka v. Secretary of State of India, a division bench held that
the plaintiff in that particular suit who obtained a decree for Rs. 100 being
a moiety of the property claimed is liable to pay court fee with regard to
the sum of Rs. 100 and the first defendant who contested the suit is liable
to pay court fee for the balance amount under section 411 of CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 of 1881.
 Procedure Where Indigent Person Fails

• Rule 11 of Order 33 of CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 deals with this aspect of
Suits by indigent person. Where the plaintiff fails in the suit or the permission granted
to him to sue as an indigent person has been withdrawn, or where the suit is withdrawn
of dismissed.
• 1. Because the summons for the defendants to appear and the answer has not been
served upon him in consequences of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the court fee or
postal charges, chargeable for such services or to present copies of the plaint or concise
statement, or
• 2. Because the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing the court
shall Order the plaintiff, or any person added as a co plaintiff to the suit, to pay the court
fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as
an indigent person.
 Mendments By The High Court of This Rule of Order 33
• Andhra Pradesh: The existing Rule 11,
which is same as that of Madras, shall be
(2) thereof:
• Where the suit has been adjusted wholly
or in part by any lawful agreement or
compromise or where the defendant
satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the
whole or any part of the subject – matter
suit, but no provision is made from the
payment of the court fee or any
proportionate part thereof, as it thinks fit.
Karnataka: Substitute the Rule 11 with:
11(1) where the plaintiff fails in the suit or is dispauperes or
where the suit is withdrawn or where part of the claim is
abandoned or the suit is dismissed because the summons of the
defendant to appear and answer has not been served upon him
in the consequence of the plaintiff failure to pay the requisite
charges for service or the suit is so dismissed because the
plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on fro hearing,
the court shall Order the plaintiff or any person added as a co
plaintiff to the suit to pay the court fee and in the case of
abandonment of part of the claim the proportionate court fee
which would have been payable by the plaintiff if he had not
been permitted to sue as a pauper.
In the cases where the plaintiff is disspaupered the court may, instead of proceedings under sub Rule 1 Order
the plaintiff to pay the requisite court fee within a time to be fixed by it and in default dismissed the suit and
make an Order for the payment of court fee as in sub Rule 1.
Where the court finds that the suit has been instituted unreasonably or improperly by a next friend on behalf
of a minor plaintiff on a cause of action which accrued during the minority of such plaintiff the court may
Order the next friend to personally pay the court fee.

3. Kerala: Same as that of the Madras

4. Pondicherry: Same as that of Madras

5. Madras: Substitute the following for the existing Rule 11: where the plaintiff fails in the suit or is
dispaupered or where the suit is withdrawn or where the suit is dismissed –

(A). because the summons for the defendant to appear and answer has not been served upon him in
consequences of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the court fees or postal charges chargeable for any service.

(B) because the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing the court shall Order the
plaintiff or any person added as a co plaintiff to the suit, to pay the court fee and in the case of abandonment
of part of the payable by the plaintiff he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper.
In cases where the plaintiff is dispaupered the
court may instead of proceeding under the
previous paragraph, Order the plaintiff to pay
the requisite court fee within a time to be fixed
by it and in default dismiss the suit and make an
Order for the payment of the court fee.

Where the court finds that the suit has been

instituted unreasonably or improperly by a next
friend on behalf of minor plaintiff on a cause of
action which accrued during the minority of
such plaintiff, the court may Order the next
friend to personally pay the court fee."
 CONCLUSION

In the end the I would like to conclude the project, that my hypothesis was partially incorrect
regarding the position of indigent person when he fails in the suit brought by him, the hypothesis is
that an indigent person cannot be made liable to pay anykind of damages or compensation, but
according to Order 33 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, an indigent person cannot be held liable
for any kind of damages other than the court fee, i.e. if a person fails in his action as an indigent
person then he is bound to pay the court fee of the respective court, and the remaining damages
have to be borne by the State Government as if they had committed the wrong.

Whereas if indigent person won the case then he cannot be held liable to any kind of expenses, fee
or damages.