S.Purushothaman v. Royal Educational Institution

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN CRP (PD) NO.2080 OF 2016 S.Purushothaman ...

Petitioner

Versus

1.Royal Educational Institution Rep. By A.Gunasingh Immanuel 15/177, Marapallam, Madukakai Anjal, Coimbatore.

2.A.Gunasingh Immanuel 3.The District Collector Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

...

Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and order passed in OP CSR No.13144/40 in OS CFR No.13143/14 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, dated 20.01.2016 dismissing the petition filed under Order 33 Rule 1 seeking permission of the Court to institute the suit as an indigent person.

For Petitioner :

Mr.A.E.Lakshmi Narayanan For Respondents 1 and 2 :

Ms.G.Uma Maheswari For Respondent 3 :

Mr.T.Jayaraman Government Advocate (CS)

O R D E R

The petitioner filed a suit against the respondents. It was a suit for recovery of money. The petitioner along with the suit filed an application to sue the respondents, as indigent.

2. The learned Trial Judge perused the schedule of property owned and possessed by the petitioner and passed an order to the effect that there are no valid grounds to declare the petitioner as indigent. The order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court failed to take evidence before passing the brief order rejecting the request to treat him as indigent.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 on the other hand submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 are having sufficient materials to prove that the petitioner is not an indigent person.

5. The order passed by the learned Trial Judge dated 20 January 2016 does not contain any reason, much less justifiable reason, to arrive at a finding that the petitioner is not an indigent person.

6. After hearing the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order and the related documents, I consider to deem it fit to remit the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. This would enable both the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 to produce materials before the Trial Court to prove their respective contentions.

7. In the result, the order dated 20.01.2016 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner is restored to file.

8. The learned Trial Judge is directed to consider the application afresh, with reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the

respondents to produce materials. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.

10.11.2016 TK To The Principal District Court Tiruppur.

K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.

TK CRP (PD) NO.2080 OF 2016 10.11.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in